Historical and Anthropological Archaeology: Forging Alliancesusers.clas.ufl.edu › davidson ›...

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 rela-tionship. Differences in theoretical perspectives, methodological concerns, andmaterial records have led to a lack of cross talk between these branches ofAmericanist archaeology. This paper presents recent issues in historical archae-ology, points out areas of common concern, and argues that both archaeologieswould benefit from informed discussions about the materiality and history of thepre- and post-Columbian world.

KEY WORDS: landscape; epistemology; history.

INTRODUCTION

In 1493 Columbus set off for North America on a voyage that truly deservesto be part of our public memory, for it, rather than the voyage of 1492, wasa 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 least17 ships, 1200 to 1500 men, and explicit plans to establish enterprises to beginthe real work of colonization. The goals of the second voyage were those forcenturies throughout the Western Hemisphere—find converts and gold; and onHispaniola, as throughout the Western Hemisphere, conversion took second placeto accumulation. The gold, never plentiful, was rapidly depleted through despotictaxes and enforced mining. Seeking an alternative form of accumulation, Columbusenslaved 1500 of Hispaniola’s people. Five hundred were transported to Spainof whom only 300 survived the passage. The survivors died shortly after arrival.History shows that Columbus’s idea of an Atlantic slave trade in Native Americanswas not realized, in part because of the colonizers’ practices of terrorizing the

1Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003.

1

1059-0161/00/0300-0001$18.00/0C© 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: FPY


2 Paynter

local population and savagely exploiting their labor in mines and fields, driving thenative population of Hispaniola virtually extinct by 1550. However, and somewhatunwittingly, Columbus did bring the source of Caribbean profits on this secondvoyage—sugar plants. By 1516 the first capital-intensive sugar mill was establishedon Hispaniola and by the mid-1500s sugar exports from the island were a majorsource of Spanish wealth. The decimated indigenous population was not a largeenough 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 themills. The transport of enslaved Africans to Hispaniola was first sanctioned in1501, and by 1517 a contract was let by the crown of Spain for 4000 Africans(Jane, 1988, pp. 20–188; Koning, 1976, pp. 70–94; Las Casas, 1992, pp. 14–25;Morison, 1991, pp. 389–399, 481–495; Williams, 1970, pp. 23–45).

Columbus’s second voyage is a capsule of the practices and processes bywhich European culture moved from its position on the periphery of the medievalworld (Abu-Lughod, 1989) to become part of the core of our post-Columbian worldsystem. More generally, the late 15th century was the beginning of a historicallyunique conjunction of forces that resulted in dreams and practices of Europeanglobal conquest. It began with European advances into Africa, followed shortlythereafter by the invasion of the Americas. Later the peoples of South, East, andCentral Asia, and then Oceania, were caught up in what eventually became ourworld, a world of global scale struggles to extract surpluses, to exert political domi-nance, to build communities, and to foster senses of political and personal identities.

It is these multiple and diverse processes and the variety of responses tothem that constitute the subject matter of historical archaeology. That historicalarchaeology is about the archaeology of European expansion is a thesis with asolid history in the discipline. Initially (and it was only some 30 years ago thatthe journalHistorical Archaeologywas founded) there were those who based thediscipline’s definition on methodology—historical archaeology being the study ofa people’s material culture with the aid of their documents. Schuyler (1978) com-piles many of these early arguments;Historical Archaeology27(1), introduced byCleland (1993), also has a number of articles on the history of the society (see alsoDeagan, 1982; Little, 1994; Orser, 1996, pp. 1–28; South, 1994). However, manypractitioners always saw historical archaeology as staking a claim to a slice ofworld 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 morerecently advocates the study of “the spread of European societies worldwide, be-ginning in the 15th century, and their subsequent development and impact on nativepeoples in all parts of the world” (Deetz, 1991, p. 1). South (ed., 1977) stressesthe importance of studying the British colonial system and not just particular sites,and more recently in studying the energetics of world cultural systems riven byclass distinctions (South, 1988). Schuyler (1970, p. 83) succinctly describes his-torical archaeology as “the study of the material manifestation of the expansion

P1: FPY


Historical and Anthropological Archaeology 3

of European culture into the non-European world starting in the 15th century andending with industrialization or the present” (see also Schuyler, 1991). Leone(1977, p. xvii), working with insights from Marx, argues that historical archaeol-ogy deals “with modern society or with its direct historical foundations. . .people,places, and processes tied up with the Industrial Revolution, the founding of themodern 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 positionthat historical archaeology is about the ways of life of post-Columbian peoples(e.g., Deagan, 1982, 1988; Falk, 1991; Leone, 1995; Orser, 1996). Less cer-tainty surrounds the key features and dynamics of this way of life. Deetz’s (1977)structuralist-idealist paradigm is a major research perspective. Approaches empha-sizing traditional and revised ecological models also have been advocated (e.g.,Hardesty, 1985; Mrozowski, 1993, 1996). Although mainstream social scienceperspectives dominate the conception of politics and economy, others have arguedfor the relevancy of any of a number of marxian and other critical approaches (e.g.,Leone, 1995; McGuire and Paynter, 1991; Orser, 1988). Theoretical approachesrarely dominate the discussion in historical archaeology as most of what historicalarchaeologists 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 theadded issue of the interplay of documentary and material sources of information[see Little (1994) and Orser (1996) for very useful overviews of the intellectualcurrents in historical archaeology].

What is the place of the post-Columbian world in the discipline of anthropo-logical archaeology? It should represent an important subject matter for a disciplineinterested in a comparative perspective on such matters as faction process, stateformation, world systems, and identity construction (e.g., Blantonet al., 1996;Brumfiel, 1992; Brumfiel and Fox, 1994; Chase-Dunn, 1992; Friedman, 1992;Patterson and Gailey, 1987; Rowlandset al., 1987; Yoffee, 1995). Nonetheless,the post-Columbian world constitutes an understudied subject in anthropologicalarchaeology (cf. Patterson, 1993). It is understudied, perhaps, in much the sameway the ethnography of Europe and of the United States are understudied due toanthropology’s aversion to the ways of life of the West (Cole, 1977; Wolf, 1982).It is also, perhaps, understudied by anthropological archaeologists because its useof documents seems somehow to circumvent the difficult task of material inter-pretation that is at the heart of “pre-historic” archaeology (Hodder, 1989, p. 141;Watson and Fotiadis, 1990, p. 615). All the same, historical archaeologists havebeen seeking a disciplinary understanding that bridges between the concerns ofanthropology and history, that uses objects to study the mediation of actions and

P1: FPY


4 Paynter

meanings. This can be accomplished only if its analysis of the past 500 yearsapproaches the creation of a vast array of ways of life through the understandingthat comes from the anthropological archaeological perspectives of comparisonand material analysis.

With its emphasis on studying the West, using documents and objects, histori-cal archaeology inhabits a liminal space in the anthropological imagination (Orser,1996, p. 10). And, this liminal position of historical archaeology, caught betweenhistory and anthropology, between culture and action, between ethnohistory andethnography, between the past and the present, has bedeviled my writing of thisreview. How do I simultaneously address the concerns of anthropological archae-ologists, historians, historical archaeological colleagues, and colleagues in otherdisciplines 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 sub-sequent article. Specifically, I have tried to cover topics as they are addressed byhistorical archaeologists. I do not take on a comprehensive study of how histo-rians and social theorists have taken on the post-Columbian world. However, forareas that have only recently begun to receive historical archaeology’s attention,especially with regards to framing the discussion, I draw on historians and socialtheorists who open up particularly useful lines of research.

Another part of the answer is to recognize some of my constraints. I princi-pally study the post-Columbian world as it has played out in the North Americannortheast. Although I try to bring a global perspective to this task, my thinking isenmeshed within the practices of historical archaeology in this area, where I alsolive and work in an anthropology department. As a result, the political movementsand the intellectual milieu all contribute to how I understand the past of this regionand its place in the world. Additionally, I am interested in developing a critical ar-chaeology, one that confronts the ideological structures and practices that promoteinequality in this region and in the globe at large. Thus, I am interested in develop-ing understandings of the recent past that work against the fairly common culturalgivens in the United States of global dominance based on inevitable technologicalprogress, grounded fuzzily in biological determinisms concerning racial and gen-der superiority (e.g., Escobar, 1995; Patterson, 1995). Since deconstructing theseethnocentric common senses can be at the heart of the anthropological enterprise, Iwant to contribute to the project of bringing this sort of anthropological perspectiveto historical archaeology’s study of the post-Columbian world.

From this perspective, the nexus of the development of mercantile and then in-dustrial capitalist class relations, the use of race in relations of class exploitation andnational conquest, the development of a conquest state tied to capitalist wealth ac-cumulation, and the formation of heterosexual, patriarchal gender relations creates

P1: FPY



the social dynamics that give distinctive shape to the past 500 years. Although Ibelieve that in general, regardless of one’s global location over the last 500 years,one would have to come to grips with the class, race, state formation, and genderrelations spun out of northwestern Europe and North America, I also acknowledgethat the particulars at any one place will be interestingly different from how thingsworked themselves out in these areas. Learning these additional histories is animportant task for historical archaeology. Moreover, in the vein of anthropologicalinquiry, learning about histories elsewhere on the globe will affect understand-ings of the general theoretical constructs of capitalism, racism, and patriarchy,and reflect back on our particular understandings of the histories of the core areasthemselves (Schmidt and Patterson, 1995). Building this larger set of understand-ings is the unfinished task of historical archaeology; and as a result, this paper isfar from a complete synthesis. It is a review given these concerns, for the sakeof 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 ofhistorical archaeology, the issues of contemporary interest, the debates of contem-porary concern, and the articulation of historical archaeology and anthropologicalarchaeology. 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 his-torical archaeology. A recent literature section for both these articles accompaniesthe second article, “People and Processes of the Post-Columbian World.”

GLOBAL RESEARCH

Historical archaeology has been mostly practiced in eastern North Americaand the Caribbean, pursuing the goals of documenting the cultures of people ofEuropean descent (principally from the British Isles and the Iberian Peninsula) andto lesser, but increasing extents, for people of African and Native American descent.Although the eastern United States and the Caribbean are the areas of greatestvolume of research, one of the most important trends in historical archaeology isthe study of the European colonial practices and the resultant resistances aroundthe world.

In North America in addition to the English, the Dutch and the Frenchalso were significant colonial powers, and their material remains have come un-der greater scrutiny (e.g., Huey, 1991; Janowitz, 1993; Moussette, 1996). Stud-ies of the North American West are of increasing frequency (e.g., Farnsworth,1989; Hardesty, 1988; Praetzellis and Praetzellis, 1992; Praetzelliset al., 1987,1988; Purser, 1989; Wegars, 1993), with provocative suggestions for thematic re-search issues to frame site-specific work found in Hardesty’s (1991b) collection ofplenary papers on “Historical Archaeology in the American West” (Ayres, 1991;

P1: FPY


6 Paynter

Greenwood, 1991; Hardesty, 1991b; Schuyler, 1991) and Lightfoot’s (1995) ar-chaeology of pluralism at Fort Ross in northern California (see also Marshall andMaas, 1997).

For the areas of North and South America influenced by the Spanish Empirethe articles in Thomas’s (1989, 1990, 1991) quincentennial volumes on the SpanishBorderlands are indispensable contributions and reviews (see also Farnsworth andWilliams, 1992). Kathleen Deagan, as reported in a number of publications (e.g.,1983, 1985; Deagan and Cruxent, 1993), has been directing research on and writ-ing detailed case studies and regional syntheses about the Spanish Caribbeanand Florida. Kowalewski (1997) is bringing the notable studies of prehistoricOaxaca into the historic period with considerations of regional change in thepost-Columbian world. Sued-Badillo (1992, 1995) and Rouse (1986, 1992) of-fer contrasting versions of the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean first caught upin European colonial schemes (see also Patterson, 1991). Jones (1989) has begunthe study of the long history of Spanish-Mayan domination and resistance, andKepecs (1997) and Alexander (1997) have conducted regional-scale archaeolog-ical and ethnohistorical research on the conquest period in Yucat´an. Armstrong(1985, 1990) and Delle (1996, 1998) present detailed studies of Jamaican plan-tations. Handler (e.g., 1997; Lange and Handler, 1985) has reported extensivelyon plantation life and its impacts on the African population in Barbados. GalwaysPlantation on Montserrat has been studied by Pulsipher (e.g., 1991). Orser (1994)and Agorsah (1993, 1995) have studied maroon populations in Brazil and theCaribbean, respectively (see also Funari, 1996). Schaedel (1992), summarizing thesparse archaeological studies from historical South America, sets out a sweepingagenda for a historical archaeology of the past 500 years. Rice has been investigat-ing 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) offersanalyses of social life in Ecuador, with attention to gender relations. In lowlandSouth America Vargas Arenas and Sanoja (e.g., Vargas Arenas, 1995) are bringingtheir distinctive and sophisticated theoretical approach of “social archaeology” tounderstand the colonial period, especially in its urban manifestations.

An extensive literature exists on the British Isles that self-identifies as beingabout post-Medieval archaeology (e.g., Crossley, 1989). Among this importantbody of information, M. Johnson’s (1993, 1996) studies of the class and gender pro-cesses operating in England is essential reading [see also Driscoll (1992), Samson(1992), and Webster (1997) for similar concerns for earlier periods in the BritishIsles]. Mangan’s study of the landscapes of Catalonia during the transition fromfeudalism to capitalism (1994) is one of the few historical archaeological worksin English from continental Europe [see Crumley (1994), McGovern (1990), andWoolf (1997) for overviews of precursor situations]. Baram (1996) and Silberman(1989; Handsman and Silberman, 1991) have begun to take apart how Europeancapitalism came to Palestine and how this archaeology figures in the contemporarystate-building efforts in the region.

P1: FPY



Southern Africa has developed an extensive literature on what Hall calls thearchaeology of impact (1993). Some of the works are singular contributions to ar-chaeological theory deserving broad readership. Hall’s (1992) study of the ideologyof race coded in the material record of South Africa, for instance, is an importanttheoretical intervention into the interpretation of meaning using material culture.Carmel Schrire’s (1995) extraordinary book informs us about the constructionof race and apartheid with first-rate interpretations of the past and provocativelyreflexive understandings of the conduct of archaeology (see also Schrire, 1991,1992) Warren Perry’s (1996) archaeologically based reconsideration of Shaka andthe Zulu state demonstrates the inextricable role of European slavers in this pro-cess, an interpretation that should affect the ethnology of state origins. West andCentral Africa have a growing body of research. De Corse (1999) has surveyedWest African archaeology with an eye to interpreting the material remains of NorthAmerican and Caribbean African-American peoples. The Kingdom of Benin hasbeen the subject of archaeological research by Kelly (1997a,b). Rowlands (1989)and Thomas-Emeagwali (1989) lay out the contours for a historical archaeology ofCameroon and Nigeria, respectively, that take into account the long-term processesof political economy indigenous to the area, and the distinctive nature of their inter-digitation with European accumulation. Studies of modern material culture, suchas Rowlands and Warnier’s (1996) analysis of magic and iron smelting or Steiner’s(1994) study of the African art trade have obvious relevance for understanding thehistorical period. Peter Schmidt (1978, 1995; Schmidt and Childs, 1995), in hissignificant body of work on East Africa, has sought to uncover the dynamics ofthese societies hidden in colonial “histories.” As in West Africa, understandingthese hidden histories is a necessary precursor for conducting a historical archae-ology of the area, one that will necessarily involve understanding the dynamicsof the Islamic world system (see also LaVioletteet al., 1989; Pearson, 1997). Ofcourse 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 withthe Portuguese invasion of Morocco, an episode given exemplary consideration inRedman’s (1986) study of the strategic town of Qsar es-Seghir (see also Booneet al., 1990).

Oceania has seen significant work in Australia (e.g., Connah, 1994) as anotherof the growing centers of historical archaeology. A remarkable collaboration byPatrick Kirch and Marshall Sahlins (1992) brings the perspectives of Sahlins’sstructural history into the study of the archaeology and ethnography of Hawaii.Nicholas Thomas’s (1991) studies of contemporary material “entanglements” inPolynesia are important reading for anyone interested in material culture theoryand the cultural workings of objects in the borderlands of colonial situations.

All of these world areas, and others, are developing distinctive understandingsof how European culture arrived and entangled itself in indigenous social, politi-cal, cultural, and economic affairs. In some areas, such as southern Africa, enoughstudies have been conducted for practitioners to develop critiques of conventional

P1: FPY


8 Paynter

understandings of European conquest; most are consumed with foundational de-scriptive work of excavation, chronology, and archival research. All the same,Schmidt and Patterson (1995) have brought together an important collection of ar-ticles that point to what alternative archaeologies of the colonial and postcolonialperiods might look like.

Historical archaeology has not settled on a world-scale narrative to tie togetherthe events and trajectories noted from around the globe. One influential model isoffered by Deetz (1977, 1988a). For North American New England Deetz suggestsa cultural progression from yeoman to folk to Georgian as a temporal successionof culture types. The yeoman-period culture is an initial close approximation tothe colonizing fragment of European culture. Cultural mutations resulting fromisolation from Europe characterize the folk period. And, a reintegration of NewEngland into the emerging consumer capitalist culture of the 19th century is theforce behind the Georgian period. Critics note limitations of this model in applica-tions elsewhere on the globe. Kelso (1992) evaluates Deetz’s tripartite model usingVirginian houses and gravestones and finds continuity where Deetz finds breaksand breaks where Deetz finds continuity, evidence for the different immigrationand class histories of New England and Virginia. Hall (1992) notes the obviousmaterial differences encountered in South Africa and uses the discrepancy in a veryclear argument for thinking about the discourses on class and slavery characteristicof European colonial ventures. It would seem that a Deetzian characterization ofculture change might be quite accurate for some factions in some colonies at someperiods, but has limited utility as a general narrative framework. Nonetheless, itis the most productive, regional–national-scale model developed and worked withby practitioners of historical archaeology to date (see also Harrington, 1989b;Sweeney, 1994).

A very different narrative has been offered by Patterson (1993, pp. 349–367).His textbook,Archaeology: The Historical Development of Civilizations, after re-viewing the familiar terrain of state formation in the Near East, Egypt, China, SouthAmerica, and Mesoamerica, concludes with a chapter entitled “Civilization and ItsDiscontents: The Archaeology of Capitalism.” He surveys the global developmentof capitalism as “an economic system. . . concerned with the production and sale ofcommodities in markets” (Patterson, 1993, p. 350). In this narrative, the plunder ofmineral wealth from the Americas and the theft of African labor provide the basisfor mercantile accumulation in northwestern Europe from the 15th through the18th centuries. Industrial production in northwestern Europe spread throughoutthe globe in the 19th and 20th centuries, knitting the world together through thestrands of the market and the politics of imperialism and neocolonialism.

Two key points underwrite Patterson’s narrative: the post-Columbian worldis the story of the rise of capitalism, and this story must be told on a worldstage. 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



and development of capitalism has been settled in the affirmative.” A number ofauthors have taken up the charge to understand capitalism from the perspective ofmaterial culture (Beaudryet al., 1991; Handsman, 1983; Leone, 1995; McGuire,1988; Orser, 1988; Paynter, 1988). Indeed, Leone (1988b) makes use of the sys-tematic tendency of capitalist political economies to go through crises to providea causal argument for Deetz’s culture periods. Patterson’s second point about theworld scale of the phenomenon, and hence of the discipline, reverberates with alarge body of theoretical work (e.g., Brewer, 1980), such as Wallerstein’s (1974,1980, 1989) school of world-systems analysis, Wolf’s (1982) historical anthropol-ogy (Schneider and Rapp, 1995), Samir Amin’s (1989) analyses of world-scaleaccumulation and accompanying culture of Eurocentrism, and work on precapital-ist world systems (e.g., Abu-Lughod, 1989; Blantonet al., 1993; Champion, 1989;Chase-Dunn, 1992; Rowlandset al., 1987). Historical archaeology has sought toarticulate world-scale and local processes in such studies as Lewis’s (1977, 1984)studies of settlement systems, Delle’s (1996, 1998) studies of Caribbean planta-tions, Schuyler’s (1991) thoughts on the American West, and my own work onNew England regional settlement patterns (Paynter, 1982, 1985).

A point widely recognized, though too often honored in the breach, is thatworld-scale processes must be understood as the articulation of European and in-digenous processes, and not simply the response to the imperatives of Europeanpolitical economics (e.g., Blaut, 1993; Mintz, 1977; Wolf, 1982). Part of the prob-lem of giving dynamic force to both sociocultural trajectories is how to imaginethe process of cultural interaction. Most commonly, this is addressed with notionsof assimilation and acculturation. However, Wolf (1982, pp. 6–7) warns about thedangerous metaphors that underlie such constructs. He cautions that understandingworld cultural history as the collision of so many differently colored billiard balls,heretofore isolated cultures, blinds us to the processes at the core of historicalchange—the continual interpenetration of ways of life with resulting cultural, po-litical, and economic reconfigurations. Unfortunately, words like “Contact period”commonly used by archaeologists to talk about the interactions between would-becolonizing Europeans and their targets sound too much like the comforting click ofbilliard balls on the cosmic billiard table of world history. Schuyler (1991) capturesthe scale of the process with his idea of “ethnohistoric interaction spheres,” thoughsuch a conceptualization runs the risk of becoming a very much bigger billiardball. Perry (1996) reconceptualizes the colonial period of intense interaction andreconfiguration, drawing on the work of Hall (1993, pp. 183–186) and N. Thomas(1991), as a period of impact and entanglement. These metaphors have the merit ofsuggesting the violence of the interactions and the agency of both the indigenousand European cultures. That historical archaeology has yet to find a replacementfor the bland “Contact period” does not hide the discipline’s recognition that thepost-Columbian world is about the sudden and persistent intertwining of formerlyunrelated historical processes. This intertwining affected historical trajectories in

P1: FPY


10 Paynter

the Americas, in Africa and Asia, and reverberated and affected the trajectoriesof Europe. The study of this post-Columbian world can be undertaken only bysimultaneously conducting local studies informed by theoretical frameworks thatallow for the influence of global-scale processes, a task that clearly needs muchmore empirical and theoretical work.

Charles Orser (1996) has recently articulated an important sustained visionof a global archaeology. He makes use of a mutualist social theory to cast a net ofrelations—social, material, and ideological—across the globe. Arguing for histor-ical archaeology as the study of the modern world, he identifies key themes—colonialism, capitalism, Eurocentrism, and modernity—for understanding thisworld. Along with reviewing work by other historical archaeologists reflectingthese themes, he presents his very interesting and recent work on the marooncommunity of Palmares in Brazil and famine-period villages in Ireland by way ofillustrating global networks. Along the way, the reader is introduced to the historyof historical archaeology and post-Medieval archaeology, the intricacies of thepresent debates in historical archaeology on interpreting meaning, and the devel-opment of landscapes as important objects of study. Though I do not use his notionof “haunts” to set my theory in motion or frame my discussion in the terms of hisfour themes, there is much in his work that reverberates with my understandingsof the post-Columbian world. Orser has produced a very provocative introductionto historical archaeology as well as a significant conceptualization of how to studyglobal cultures; it is a good starting place for further study of this subdiscipline.

THE MATERIALITY OF AND METHODOLOGIES FOR THE STUDYOF THE POST-COLUMBIAN WORLD

An Ontology of Objects and Landscapes

Historical archaeology is both blessed and cursed with studying a way of lifeawash in material culture (Deetz, 1973). Not surprisingly, much of the work ofhistorical archaeology involves detailing these objects, work that discloses whomade what, when, where, and how it was used. Noel Hume’s (1969) classic com-pendium still stands as a much needed reference and paradigm for this impor-tant work (e.g., Beaudryet al., 1988; Carskadden and Gartley, 1990; Gates andOrmerod, 1982; Jones and Sullivan, 1985; Kenmotsu, 1990; Lister and Lister,1987). Such studies also seek to link the objects, their makers, and their usersto the larger economic and social forces (e.g., D. Miller, 1987, 1997; G. Miller,1991; Turnbaugh, 1985). The impact of anthropological archaeology can be seenin 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; Rothschildand Balkwill, 1993), to analyze landscaping and gardening practices (e.g., Kelso,

P1: FPY



1994, 1996; Kelso and Beaudry, 1990; Kelsoet al., 1987; Miller, 1989; Mrozowski,1991; Mrozowski and Kelso, 1987), to investigate disease (e.g., Mrozowski, 1991;Reinhardet 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 understandingaction and thought in the past? Recent work in historical archaeology has developednew ontologies as well as analyses of new classes of information beyond themainstays of portable artifact analyses. There is considerable overlap with similardiscussions in anthropological archaeology that have called for new methods forstudying the material world and new approaches to materiality that have expandeddefinitions of data. In historical archaeology, these critiques have addressed thetraditional “fall-out” models of material culture and added cultural landscapes tothe domain of archaeological analysis.

The traditional ontological precept relating culture and objects is the notionthat culture, the subject of inquiry, leaves material correlates. This fall-out modelof material culture relations is exemplified in idealist theories, such as Deetz’s(1967, pp. 45–49, 1977) notion of mental templates and worldviews that guide theproduction of the material world, and in more materialist theories, such as South’s(1977) notion of patterns of material culture. The task for the investigator operatingfrom either of these theoretical positions is to discover the culture by studying thematerial 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 thatgives objects an active voice in cultural practices (Hodder, 1986, 1989; Shanks andTilley, 1987a,b; Tilley, 1990; Wobst, 1977). From this angle, studying material cul-ture is not about studying the residue of culture, but is about studying an importantaspect of culture itself. The problem for the investigator is less to imagine materialtransforms or implications and more to imagine intricate and repetitive sequencesof human-object interaction that result in the construction of meaning embeddedin social relations. In historical archaeology, authors have investigated the roleof objects with concepts of discourse, habitus, cultural biography, resistance, andritual (for a review see Shackel and Little, 1992). For instance, Hall (1992) recastsmaterial evidence of racisms and their concomitant resistances from a Deetzianstructural analysis to one based in the analysis of discourses. Nassaney and Abel(1993) investigate sabotage at a cutlery factory as a significant human–object in-teraction in capitalist societies. De Cunzo (1995) studies the rituals that weavetogether people, objects and ideologies as they were used by the middle classreformers to address the “problem” of prostitution in Philadelphia. Delle (1996,1998) expands on the work of Harvey (1989), Soja (1989), and Lefebvre (1991) tounderstand the active use of space in structuring Jamaican coffee plantations (seealso McKee, 1992; Orser, 1988). Orser (1992) advocates the use of the notion ofcultural biography to capture the shifting meanings objects take during their pathfrom production to forgotten trash.

P1: FPY


12 Paynter

Of all the objects studied by historical archaeologists, space has been go-ing through a significant rethinking, from a neutral and objective dimension ofmeasurement to a culturally mediated object. The reconceptualization is to suchan extent that one might say that a whole new class of artifact has been “discov-ered,” namely, the landscape (e.g., Beaudry, 1986; Delle, 1996, 1998; Handsmanand 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. . . [placesthat]. . .physically embody the history, structure and contexts” of a given way oflife. For Rubertone (1989b, p. 50) these cultural landscapes have been “shaped andmodified by human actions and conscious design to provide housing, accommo-date the system of production, facilitate communication and transportation, marksocial inequalities, and express aesthetics.” Not restricted to sites alone, Hood(1996, p. 122) notes that “landscapes exist in a continuum of human perceptionand usage” ranging from formally planned spaces, such as gardens, to seeminglynatural places, such as abandoned fields and pastures (1996, p. 122). In betweenthese extremes are “a very large category of spaces that have been increasinglyreferred to by such terms as houselots, yardscapes, streetscapes, vernacular land-scapes, and so on” (Hood, 1996, p. 122). All of these have come increasingly underthe attention of archaeological investigation.

A focus on landscapes has proven a productive research plan in historicalarchaeology for a number of reasons. Landscapes have proven to be a productiveway to merge information from resource management projects with that of pureresearch studies (e.g., Bradley, 1984). Information on landscapes is always recov-ered during excavation, even if artifact assemblages or decipherable architecturalfragments are absent. Moreover, landscapes have proven more realistic artifactsfor understanding the contours of life in the constantly churning world of maturecapitalism; at least landscapes are by definition primary deposits.

Archaeologists have studied various places on the North American histori-cal landscape, including regions (e.g., Lewis, 1984; Paynter, 1982; Purser, 1989),commercial and industrial cities (e.g., Beaudry, 1989; Beaudry and Mrozowski,1989; Cressyet 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 andflow between these places (e.g., Gordon and Malone, 1994, pp. 55–223; Leone,1978; Samson, 1992). Farmsteads, plantations, and homelots are the most frequentform of report, and thus there are too many good examples to cite [Adams (1990)and Worrellet al. (1996) are good overviews].

P1: FPY



The investigation of landscapes has led to the development and modificationof various techniques and methods. For instance, remote sensing and geophysicalsurvey have been put to good use in site survey (Clark, 1990; Garrison, 1996;Parrington, 1983). The complex stratigraphy of historical-period sites has bene-fited from analysis using Harris matrices (Harris, 1979; Harriset al., 1993). Asnoted above, palynological analysis has provided evidence of the flora on previ-ous landscapes. The primary documents of maps and papers have given insightinto 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) considerssuch landscapes of the imagination in her study of Shaker poetry and spirit draw-ing. Investigating these ideologies of space might take clues from Williams’s studyof the ideology of the city and the countryside (1973), Fryer’s investigations ofgender and space in the work of Edith Wharton and Willa Cather (1986), andDorst’s study of the positioning of Chadds Ford in the high culture of the Wyethsand the popular culture of “historical” America (1989). These concerns bridge wellto work done on the shifting meaning of historical landscapes in Great Britain,especially by Barbara Bender in her original study of Stonehenge (1993, 1998; seealso Tilley, 1994).

What we do know is that these rich spatial ideologies gave meaning to thephysical objects people built and encountered. Although yet to be synthesized,these encounters happened in a spatial terrain that was simultaneously part of asystem, such as that so masterfully described and analyzed in Meinig’s geograph-ical history of North America (1986, 1993) and fractured into parts, as presentedin Leone and Silberman’s (1995) remarkable atlas/travel guide/catalog of the U.S.historical terrain. The challenge of studying this landscape is to keep clear that stateformation, race, gender, and class were enmeshed in these spatialities so that thecultural landscape was constructed and experienced differently depending uponwhether one was white, black or red, whether one was rich or poor, and whetherone 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 dis-tinct from that studied by most anthropological archaeologists—written documents(Deagan, 1988; Schuyler, 1988). Hodder (1986, p. 141) damns with faint praisethe volume of data and the presence of texts as providing the potential for morerichly networked data. As a result, historical archaeology has an “easier approach”

P1: FPY


14 Paynter

to contextual archaeology (1986, p. 141), something that seems to separate it fromthe real task of analyzing the “harder,” document-free data of anthropologicalarchaeology [see also Beaudry (1996 pp. 479–480) or Orser (1996 p. 11) for atracing of this prejudice]. On the other hand, historical archaeologists are all toofamiliar with historians who, as discussants at meetings, question the need fordoing archaeology by pointing out that some observation based on hours of te-dious excavation and analysis was readily available in a document (Little, 1992,p. 5). So, do documents provide historical archaeology with an embarrassment ofriches or simply make archaeology embarrassing? How to handle documents andmaterial objects has concerned the discipline since its inception. Ultimately, itsanswer infringes on questions of both epistemology and the study of meaning.

Mary Beaudry (1988, p. 1) has productively criticized common misuses ofdocuments: “Many view archival material as a control lacking in prehistory. . . theymay use historical sites as test cases for models developed in prehistory; or they setout to discover whether archaeological evidence properly reflects the documentaryrecord or vice versa.” She argues that documents are complex artifacts reflectinga partial reality and need to be paid their intellectual due. Little (1992, p. 4) sim-ilarly criticizes simplistic uses of documents by archaeologists: “Documentaryand archaeological data may be thought of as interdependent and complemen-tary, or as independent and contradictory. Oddly enough, both of these views areviable.. . .” Historical archaeologists argue today that documents must be seen asa problematic source of information in and of themselves requiring careful studyand interpretation (e.g., De Cunzo, 1995, pp. 94–100; Deagan, 1988; Galloway,1991; Schuyler, 1978, 1988). Both Beaudry (ed., 1988) and Little (ed., 1992) haveedited important volumes that explore methods to meld documents and objects.

Less attention has been devoted to the integration of oral histories into theresearch of historical archaeologists. Among others, Schmidt (1995), Perry (1998),Purser (1992), Kus (1997), Bender (1998), and Holland (1990) have all made useof and thought critically about oral traditions. Oral histories bring their own sets ofproblems, much more familiar to ethnographers who have to be concerned abouttheir own place in the society they are studying and why some people choose tobecome their key informants. Though oral histories represent untapped potentialsand uninvestigated problems, their use would be a reminder of who the documentshave forgotten and what the objects may record.

One of the most sophisticated considerations of how to consider documentsand objects can be found in Leone’s notion of “middle-range theory” (e.g., Leone,1988a,b; Leone and Crosby, 1987; Leone and Potter, 1988). This is obviously anappreciative nod to Binford; nonetheless, what Leone suggests is a transforma-tion of Binford. Specifically, the idea is to compare the results of a documentarystudy and a study of the material record. The most familiar strategy in historicalarchaeology looks for points of similarity, of confirmation: deed chains that canbe matched with assemblage dates, social status indices that can be matched with

P1: FPY



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 partof the material record, a methodological stance that contributes to the position bymany historians (and historical anthropologists) that anything they can learn fromobjects is already known in the documents. Leone makes a key argument. First,he acknowledges that documents and objects are not really independent lines ofevidence; they are, after all, the results of people participating in the same culturalpractices. Nonetheless, they track very different moments of that process subjectto very different biases and social processes. If, as Leone argues, they are thoughtof “as if” they are independent, one can guard against unwarranted functionalism.Guarding against undue functionalism is important. When documents and objectstell different stories, especially stories in which one record is met with silence inthe other, this may be due to sample problems, or it may be due to the operationsof 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 trackthe work of social power.

Leone’s middle-range theory is quite compatible with the insights of AlisonWylie on method in historical archaeology. Wylie (1993), in her typically clearand lucid manner, considers the limits of a Binfordian epistemology of logicalpositivism for historical archaeology, given its enmeshment of a documentary andobjectified data base, and the archaeologist’s simultaneous position as participantand observer [see also Saitta (1989) for an important critique of positivist epis-temologies]. She concludes that an appropriate epistemology is one that uses thenotion of “cables of inference.” Such an exposition is one in which “no individualline of evidence may enjoy foundational security, [but] taken together, multiple(independent) lines of evidence can impose decisive empirical constraints on whatwe can reasonably accept (or entertain) as a plausible account of the past.” Indeed,this seems the more favored, if rarely explicitly articulated, epistemology of mosthistorical archaeologists (see also Deagan, 1988; Deetz, 1993, pp. 158–163).

Historical archaeology also finds itself enmeshed in more familiar debatesabout epistemology. The common anthropological archaeology epistemology oftesting and verification has been argued for in historical archaeology; as in an-thropological archaeology, there has been the recent advocacy of an interpretiveepistemology that seeks an insider’s view of these past cultures (e.g., Beaudry,1996; Cleland, 1988; South, 1977; Yentsch, 1994). The promise of an interpretiveapproach, as Hodder notes above, is all the stronger because of the presence ofdocuments that give access to an emic perspective, the meaning systems of pastpeoples (Schuyler, 1977). This possibility for the study of meaning is the sourceof some of the most intense debates and fruitful methodological developments inthe subdiscipline. Little and Shackel (1992) cogently parse the debates in histori-cal archaeology, cataloging the various perspectives as processual approaches thatconsider meaning to be “secondary and invisible,” structural approaches that see

P1: FPY


16 Paynter

creating meaning as the goal of culture, and postprocessual approaches that eschewthe distinction between action and meaning (e.g., Little and Shackel, 1992, p. 1).

Despite the heat generated by these arguments, there are points of generalagreement among the holders of these different positions. For one there is consid-erable agreement that the meanings of things need to be and can be consideredin historical archaeology. The reason historical archaeologists can use objects toapproach meaning is because of a general agreement that objects are recursive, that“objects recycle culture, returning it to the concrete and empirical world where itmay be experienced, learned, and changed” (see also Leone, 1986, pp. 416–417;Little and Shackel, 1992, p. 1). Moreover, there is agreement that the meaningsof objects can emerge from studying objects in their contextual relations. Dis-agreement exists about exactly what the relevant contexts are, whose meaningsare interpretable, whether the perceptions of some factions dominate those of allmembers of society, and whether the interpretation of meaning is an end in itselfor 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 atmeaning, including structural analysis (e.g., Deetz, 1977; Yentsch, 1991), con-textual analysis (e.g., Beaudry, 1993; Beaudryet al., 1991; Little and Shackel,1992; Mrozowski, 1993, 1996), dialogical analysis (Hall, 1992), Foucauldian ap-proaches (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), analy-ses drawn from a humanistic anthropology (e.g., Yentsch, 1994), and hermeneuticreadings (Garman, 1994). The history of the debates is well-tilled ground, worththe attention of any archaeologist interested in linking meaning and material re-mains (e.g., Beaudry, 1996; Beaudryet al., 1991; Deetz, 1977; Leone, 1984, 1986;Little, 1994; Orser, 1996, pp. 159–182).

The approach to how meaning worked in the past has had implications for howarchaeologists construct meanings today, resulting in experimentations in writingarchaeology. 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 andblacks, Yentsch builds strong cables that disclose in intricate interweavings thetexture of past lives, structures, and histories.

Russell Handsman’s (1987) experimental narratives in New England historyprovide both a critique of how New England’s past has been represented and aprospectus for the writing of the region’s hidden histories. Other experiments haveincluded forays into fiction. In an important study, Spector (1993) explores thelimits of traditional scientific methods and epistemologies for bridging the presentto the past. Her study offers a powerful mix of fiction and biography to the end ofdecolonizing our understandings of Dakota lives in the 19th century and those of

P1: FPY



archaeologists in the 20th. Another important move in this direction is Ferguson’s(1992) assessment of colonoware. He, too, mixes genres, using fiction to force onhimself and his reader a confrontation with the texture and the humanity of theAfrican and African-American people who constructed these distinctive ceramicvessels. Ferguson (1992) also offers another important departure from standard so-cial scientific prose in historical archaeology, a strong authorial voice. In a strikingconclusion, Ferguson relates some of his personal experiences in the desegragatingSouth, experiences that unite personal, political, and structural history to give anurgency to his inquiry into African American folkways. A similar strong voicecan be found in the work of Schrire (1995), who recounts the enmeshment ofher historical archaeology of South Africa with her life experiences within SouthAfrica’s various faces of prejudice. Far more than the professional reminiscences(e.g., Binford, 1972) or fictional parables (e.g., Flannery, 1976), these strong voicesand experimental writing techniques seek to convince us about the past, and ourown practices, in new ways. This marks quite an epistemological distance for adiscipline to travel given that its leading journal advised authors to avoid the useof the first person pronoun in submitted articles (Anonymous, 1991, p. 124).

From landscapes to self-reflection, historical archaeology has been discover-ing new ways to open up its subject matter, to give a more textured understandingof its subject, and to be responsive to intellectual currents in the broader disciplinesof anthropology, history, and contemporary academic ideology. In all these issuesthere are many parallels between work in historical archaeology and in anthropo-logical archaeology. There is one additional way in which, at least as practicedin North America, these two subdisciplines differ—the treatment of the culturalrelationship 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 empiricalor commonsense fashion as being simply that of our relationship to the past, and of ourpossibility of understanding the latter’s monuments, artifacts, and traces. The dilemmaof any “historicism” can then be dramatized by the peculiar, unavoidable, yet seeminglyunresolvable alternation between Identity and Difference. (Jameson, 1988, p. 150)

Archaeology often assumes a difference between the people of the presentand the people of the past. An alternative position recognizes the significanceof identity in the construction of the past: “Archaeological interpretations are asmuch a function of the social setting in which they are formulated and presented asthey are of the social matrix from which they are excavated” (Leone and Preucel,1992, p. 119). Obviously, thinking about history involves the simultaneous recog-nition of identity and difference, a complex problem in and of itself (e.g., Gero,1989; Geroet 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 Paynter

peculiarly empirical, rather than simply philosophical, twist in historical archae-ology, since indeed historical archaeology is the study of the origins of moderncultures (e.g., Deetz, 1977, pp. 156–161). In a very straightforward sense, and un-like the epistemological problems facing anthropological archaeologists, historicalarchaeologists are simultaneously observers of and participants in the subject oftheir inquiry.

Within historical archaeology, studies that take on this dilemma are referredto as “critical archaeology.” Themes in a critical historical archaeology includebringing class relations into view in a society that insists on the omnipresence ofthe 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 thehistorical contexts that gave rise to key and seemingly universal metaphors thatundergird such narratives, such as the naturalness of individuals and the reality ofobjective time.

Handsman and Leone (1989) present a particularly clear brief for and exem-plification of the method of critical historical archaeology. They begin by notingthat “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 isthought to be, ideology, is taken to be an understanding that serves the interestsof society’s elites. Critical social science has as its goal the unmasking of theseideologies, and critical archaeology’s task “is to analyze how modern ideologyis projected into the past and how that projection reproduced present society’srelations of domination” (p. 119). The object of analysis should be the “inter-pretive models, museum interpretations, or more generally, the stories that aretold about the prehistoric and historic past” (p. 119). In these stories and inter-pretations, archaeologists should look for how life is constructed as timeless ormatter of fact, masking separations and oppositions that might have led to differentpresents. These timeless qualities specifically hide the historical contingency oftoday’s power structures; disclosing their contingency is the goal of the analysis.This analysis should not simply remain in the domain of the scholar, but, theyargue, should be presented in equally public and accessible forms to empowerthe general public. The end goal of such public presentations should be not onlynegatively critical, but also positively critical, by suggesting that there have beenmany 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 exhibitsabout such diverse figures as George Washington and working-class Connecticutclock makers are used by and mystified in service to the ideological precepts of in-dividualism. Their analyses include counter-exhibits, whose aim would be to alterthe impression that the social world is made up of “historically-constituted, self-determining, sentient. . . individuals [who] are assumed to have existed in all timesand places” (p. 133) and replace this with an understanding that our conception of

P1: FPY



individualism is “bound up with the histories of merchant capital and industrialcapitalism” (p. 133).

A number of studies take the analysis of public exhibits and monumentsas points of departure for a critical archaeology. For instance, Michael Blakey(1990) analyzes the presentation of whites and people of color at the SmithsonianMuseums in Washington, D.C. He condemns the consistent association of Euro-Americans with the powerful technological and intellectual strands of Americannational identity and Afro-Americans and Native Americans with the ethnicallyand emotionally distinct and passive ways of life that somehow cohabited Americabut 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 Afro-American life out of the history of the north, thereby recreating a distinctly northernform of white racism. Paul Shackel (1995) uses the changing treatment of theengine house at Harper’s Ferry where John Brown made his famous stand topenetrate the shifting contours of armed resistance in the national story of theCivil War.

Parker Potter (1994), in his monograph on critical historical archaeology, be-gins with ethnography rather than exhibits (see also Leoneet al., 1987). He studiedthe 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 po-sition. One particularly significant contemporary use, in an economy dominatedby tourists and nonlocal state legislators, separates those knowledgeable aboutcolonial artifacts and architecture (the locals) from other more transient elites (thelegislators). Another use of the past is to present George Washington as a model ofappropriate tourist behavior. In an attempt to unmask these ideological uses of thepast, Archaeology at Annapolis developed archaeological tours that acknowledgedthe social position of the interpreter and the visitor in the present, with the goal ofteaching about how knowledge of the past is created. The model narratives explic-itly seek to historicize modern patterns of behavior, such as dining etiquette andequipment, and architectural codes and conventions, by identifying their originsduring the Georgian revolution, and to disclose the historically inaccurate con-struction of George Washington as a “tourist.” Potter also presents the instrumentsused to evaluate the significant impacts these tours had on the general public. Thestudy, framed with informative discussions about the philosophies of critical re-search, the history of historical archaeology, and the history of Annapolis, is anengaging and important book, of significance for any archaeologist interested inhow the past and present interweave.

Critical historical archaeology springs from anthropology’s distinctive gen-eral lack of interest in the white core of the contemporary world system. Thus, thereis little in the way of ethnography produced by nonarchaeologists that is readilyamenable to material study in the past. As a result, historical archaeologists are

P1: FPY


20 Paynter

filling some of this void, an enterprise of interest to cultural anthropologists aswell as anthropological archaeologists, with cultural analyses and ethnographiesof how American culture makes “history.” Part of that history making is the prac-tice of anthropological archaeology, but only part. Thus, the questions deemedsignificant in anthropological archaeology are but one source of what constitutessignificance in historical archaeology; significance also comes in the constructionof hegemonic and alternative understandings by historical archaeologists who areparticipants as well as observers of the American way of life.

HISTORIES AND ARCHAEOLOGIES

Given the range of issues confronted by historical archaeology, why is therethe persistent sense that it is somehow lacking? I referred at the start to the pervasivesense that historical archaeology is, in Barbara Little’s phrase, the junior varsityof anthropological archaeologies (1994, p. 30). This sense also is found withinthe field. In 1987, the Society for Historical Archaeology ran a plenary sessionabout the “Questions that Count in Historical Archaeology” (Honerkamp, 1988). Ageneral concern for the lack of theoretically significant contributions by historicalarchaeologists was expressed by the distinguished presenters, captured explicitlyin Deagan’s (1988, p. 7) observation that “historical archaeology has not producedthe original and unparalleled insights into human cultural behavior or evolutionthat we might expect to result from the unique perspective and data base of thefield.” Various sources of difficulty were identified, including being trapped withmethodologies generated by prehistorians and limited for historical archaeology’sdocumentary, oral, and material data base (Deagan, 1988), too great a concern withdescription, especially in the name of particularism and the idiosyncratic, at theexpense of concern with enduring issues of culture process (Cleland, 1988; South,1988), and an unwarranted sense of deference to anthropological archaeology andhistory, characterized by Schuyler (1988, pp. 36–37) as the Pseudo-ProcessualProgress Proffered by Prehistorians complex and the need to “stop trying to makeuncalled for offerings at the altar of Clio.” Remedies offered by all the authorsinclude making use of the unique data bases of historical archaeology and directingattention 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 archaeologicaltheory within the context of Western culture, and their perspectives put the statusof historical archaeology in a different light. Trigger (1984, p. 616) distinguishesdifferent archaeologies, appropriate to the “roles that particular nation states play,economically, politically, and culturally, as interdependent parts of the modernworld-system.” One is the nationalist archaeology, whose primary function “is tobolster the pride and morale of nations or ethnic groups” (p. 620). Colonialist

P1: FPY



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 powerhas its worldwide sway. American archaeology began as a colonialist endeavorbut, with the advent of the New Archaeology, took on the characteristics of animperialist archaeology. “Its emphasis on nomothetic generalizations implies notsimply that the study of native American prehistory as an end in itself is trivial butalso that this is true of the investigation of any national tradition” (p. 620). Kohl’s(1998) recent consideration of Trigger’s argument notes the variety of ways thatnation-states have used archaeology to underwrite their legitimacy, noting the widerrange of nationalist archaeologies than apparent in Trigger’s analysis. Seeking toescape an involvement in politics by developing an archaeology that trivializes anyparticular history seems, on the basis of the studies by Trigger, Patterson, and Kohl,unlikely to succeed. Rather, the move to trivializing national traditions seems tobe the ideological device of elevating the interest of a segment of world society tothe status of a universal as a means to hide the particularity of that segment’s pointof view (Miller and Tilley, 1984).

There is no explicit consideration of historical archaeology by Trigger; how-ever, it does seem caught between an underdeveloped form of a nationalistAmerican archaeology and the dominant American imperialist anthropologicalarchaeology. Born in the strife of the 1960s, some of historical archaeology’s fas-cination with the dramatic or beautiful “significant” places on the American histor-ical landscape represents a tendency towards being a handmaiden to a consensusand nationalist history of the United States. But another outcome of the 1960sis the critical tradition (Patterson, 1995, pp. 133–139) in historical archaeology,which seeks to contest aspects of the consensus vision, out of populist impulsesthat recognize the importance of common people, and out of more radical im-pulses that seek to unmask ideologies of race, class, and gender consensus, or thatare dissatisfied with stories of national technological progress that ignore globalimpoverishment. As if being caught between consensus and critical traditions ofhistory were not enough, historical archaeology also was born in the 1960s’ enthu-siasm for the New Archaeology, Trigger’s imperialist American archaeology thattrivializes concern with either version of a “local” history. No wonder it is difficultfor historical archaeologists to match aspirations with achievements.

The imperialist impulses in anthropological archaeology are facing a severetest from an anti-colonialist, nationalist direction. NAGPRA has forced a conver-sation with native peoples of the United States about access to the materials ofthe North American past and the significance of an imperialist perspective fortheir interpretation. Minimally, as Leone and Preucel (1992, p. 123) point out,“Archaeologists have been markedly less effective in making their professionalinterests known to the public and to Native Americans.” Appeals to universal sci-entific truths and universal benefits of education have failed to register with thenationalist goals of Native Americans or with United States national institutions

P1: FPY


22 Paynter

(McGuire, 1992a, p. 827; Spector, 1993). These conversations have led an increas-ing 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 thatleads to the revaluation of the “local” history of the North American past.

In other words, American anthropological archaeology increasingly findsitself caught in what has been historical archaeology’s dilemma, that of trying tounderstand local history with perspectives that tend to trivialize such an endeavor(Patterson, 1990, 1995; Ramenofsky, 1991; Trigger, 1989, 1991). Anthropologicalarchaeologists have increasingly turned attention to the issue of history (such asat the 1997 Chacmool Conference on “The Entangled Past. . . Integrating Historyand Archaeology”). The problem, in part, is making structuralist models of humansociety take on a nonteleological diachronic dimension. Some approaches seekthe parallels between biological and cultural evolution (e.g., Dunnell, 1980, 1982,1989; Schiffer, 1996). Others have advocated the perspectives of Braudel andthe Annales school (e.g., Hodder, 1987; Knapp, 1992; Smith, 1992). And othersapproach history within the broad parameters set by Marx’s (1984, p. 97) notionthat “men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; theydo not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstancesdirectly 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 bridgesbetween the idiosyncretism of the post-Processual archaeology and the universal-ism of Processual archaeology (1994, 1997a,b). These differences often are con-structed as the difference between science and history. However, he argues thatscience and history are not necessarily diametrically opposite endeavors. Con-ceived as an historical science, archaeology can take its place alongside otherhistorical sciences, such as evolutionary biology (Feinman, 1994, pp. 18–25). Inthis, the goal is to “wind our way through particulars and specific sequences, whilenot losing sight of general, comparative, and theoretical questions concerning cul-tural differences, similarities, and change” (Feinman, 1994, p. 19). Doing thisinvolves, among other tasks, writing particular histories for specific places, times,and people while maintaining an interest in systemic processes, making use ofany relevant data without privileging texts over objects (or vice versa), eschew-ing normative narratives by recognizing the ordered diversity of social life, andstructuring arguments so that ideas and data confront and constrain one another(Feinman, 1997b).

These are sensible responses to the polemical debates of Processual and post-Processual archaeologists (see also Trigger, 1991). In addition, critical archaeologysuggests extending these ideas to address the role of archaeology within our cul-ture. For anthropological archaeology this point has been most acutely made in

P1: FPY



the contests between archaeologists and Native Americans over writing the Nativepast. As noted above, the reemergence of the Native history of North America isdue in part to the contest between archaeologists and some Native nations overthe 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 archae-ology has played in conservative and liberal theories concerning Native NorthAmericans (see also Patterson, 1995; Trigger, 1980, 1989). McGuire’s analysismakes clear that regardless of intention, the results of anthropological archaeol-ogy will be used within mainstream society as it continually comes to grip with thelegacy of conquest. It also makes clear that with few exceptions, archaeology hasgravitated to the liberal, noble savage position, a position with honor but, nonethe-less, a position caught in the dialectic of noble and ignoble savages characteristic ofcolonialist ideologies. A way out is to imagine a world of different social relations,of Native autonomy, of Native anticolonial nationalism. Regardless of what onethinks of McGuire’s challenge (and I find it worth our attention), any attempt towrite, in theory or in particular, the history of Native North America will need torecognize explicitly that it is inextricably caught in discourses about colonialismand anticolonialism in the culture that is producing archaeology.

Trying to understand where archaeology fits within nationalist ideologies isfamiliar terrain for historical archaeology. Historical archaeologists have takenon the task of writing antitriumphalist histories that emphasize the role of socialrelations as well as individuals, the common people as well as the prominent, thestruggles along class, color, and gender lines, and the emergent social and culturaldiversity of a supposedly uniform nation-state. To say that it is familiar terrain isnot to say that it has been solved. For instance, adding the anticolonialist histo-ries to be written by anthropological archaeologists about resistant and persistent,as well as vanquished, indigenous peoples would be a powerful synthesis. His-torical and anthropological archaeologists have much in common in developingepistemologies, theories, and methods to engage this important area of research.A dynamic blending of the scientific abstraction of the New Archaeology with thehistorical concerns of archaeologists who recognize their engagement in their ownculture would provide a salutary amalgamation in the Untied States and in otherarchaeology-producing cultures around the globe.

In sum, historical archaeology and anthropological archaeology face many ofthe same issues. Theorizing diverse forms of materiality (especially regarding themethods and theories of landscapes), working on the epistemological problemsof using written documents as well as material objects, and studying the place ofarchaeology in archaeology-making cultures are three areas of congruence. Mostimportant is the problem of devising disciplinary agreement on what constitutesculture history. What standards of proof are relevant? What processes should begiven research priority? What questions are of pressing import? And, how doanswers fit into the various ways the past is used in the contemporary world?

P1: FPY


24 Paynter

Insights from anthropological and historical archaeologies are needed to negotiatethese issues. A forthcoming review will investigate how historical archaeologistshave sought to develop an understanding of the post-Columbian world based inthe analysis of the formation of race, class, state, and gender relations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks go to Marge Abel, Uzi Baram, Mark Bograd, Claire Carlson, MartaCarlson, Liz Chilton, Jim Delle, Jim Garman, Rick Gumaer, Susan Hautaniemi,Steve Himmer, Ed Hood, Ross Jamieson, David Lacy, Kerry Lynch, PatriciaMangan, Ruth Mathis, Paul Mullins, Nancy Muller, Juliana Nairouz, MikeNassaney, Sacha Page, Richard Panchyk, Marlys Pearson, Rita Reinke, MaryRobison, 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 Price’spatience and sage advice.

REFERENCES CITED

Abu-Lughod, J. L. (1989).Before European Hegemony: The World System AD 1250–1350, OxfordUniversity Press, New York.

Adams, W. H. (1977).Silcott, Washington: Ethnoarchaeology of a Rural American Community, Reportsof Investigation 54, Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

Adams, W. H. (1990). Landscape archaeology, landscape history, and the American farmstead.His-torical Archaeology24(4): 92–101.

Agorsah, E. K. (1993). Archaeology and resistance history in the Caribbean.African ArchaeologyReview11: 175–195.

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 forCaribbean Archaeology, Centro de Estudiao Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe, San Juan,pp. 401–413.

Alexander, R. T. (1997). Haciendas and economic change in Yucatan: Entrepreneurial strategies in theParroquia de Yaxcaba, 1775–1850.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory4: 331–351.

Amin, S. (1989).Eurocentrism, Monthly Review Press, New York.Anonymous (1991). Publication and style guidelines for historical archaeology.Historical Archaeology

25(1): 124–137.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. 261–287.

Armstrong, D. V. (1990).The Old Village and the Great House: An Archaeological and HistoricalExamination of Drax Hall Plantation, St. Ann’s Bay, Jamaica, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Ayres, J. E. (1991). Historical archaeology in Arizona and New Mexico.Historical Archaeology25(3):18–23.

Baram, U. (1996).Material Culture, Commodities, and Consumption in Palestine, 1500–1900, Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Beaudry, M. C. (1986). The archaeology of historical land use in Massachusetts.Historical Archaeology20: 38–46.

P1: FPY



Beaudry, M. C. (1988). Introduction. In Beaudry, M. C. (ed.),Documentary Archaeology in the NewWorld, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–3.

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 ofcorporate ideology.Historical Archaeology23(1): 18–32.

Beaudry, M. C. (1993). Public aesthetics versus personal experience: Worker health and well-being in19th century Lowell, Massachusetts.Historical Archaeology27(2): 90–105.

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 PontWinterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, pp. 473–497.

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 Journalof the Society for Industrial Archaeology14(2): 1–22.

Beaudry, M. C., Long, J., Miller, H. M., Neiman, F. D., and Stone, G. W. (1988). A vessel typol-ogy for early Chesapeake ceramics: The Potomac typological system. In Beaudry, M. C. (ed.),Documentary Archaeology in the New World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 51–67.

Beaudry, M. C., Cook, L. J., and Mrozowski, S. A. (1991). Artifacts and active voices: Material cultureas social discourse. In McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.),The Archaeology of Inequality,Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 150–191.

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. 38–48.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 Anthropology37: 1–14.Blaut, J. M. (1993).The Colonizer’s 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 Anthropologist92: 630–646.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, BocaRaton, FL, pp. 267–281.

Bradley, J. W. (1984).Historic and Archaeological Resources of the Connecticut Valley: A Frameworkfor 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 Anthropologist94: 551–567.

Brumfiel, E. M., and Fox, J. W. (eds.) (1994).Factional Competition and Political Development in theNew World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Carskadden, J., and Gartley, R. (1990). A preliminary seriation of 19th century decorated porcelainmarbles.Historical Archaeology24(2): 55–69.

Champion, T. C. (ed.) (1989).Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology, UnwinHyman, London.

Chase-Dunn, C. (ed.) (1992).Special Number: Comparing World-Systems. Review15(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 Archaeology22(1):

13–17.Cleland, C. E. (1993). The Society for Historical Archaeology and its first twenty-five years: Introduc-

tion. Historical Archaeology27(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 Archaeology27(4): 39–64.

P1: FPY


26 Paynter

Cole, J. W. (1977). Anthropology comes part-way home: Community studies in Europe.Annual Reviewof Anthropology6: 349–378.

Connah, G. (1994).The Archaeology of Australia’s 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, AcademicPress, Orlando, FL, pp. 143–173.

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, 1800–1850.Historical Archaeology29(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. 151–177.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 EasternNorth America, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 281–318.

Deagan, K. (1988). Neither history nor prehistory: The questions that count in historical archaeology.Historical Archaeology22(1): 7–12.

Deagan, K., and Cruxent, J. M. (1993). From contact to criollo: The archaeology of Spanish colonizationin Hispaniola. In Bray, W. (ed.),The Meeting of Two Worlds, Oxford University Press, Oxford,pp. 67–104.

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 VirginiaPress, 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. 121–130.Deetz, J. F. (1973). Ceramics from Plymouth, 1635–1835: The archeological evidence. In Quimby,

I. M. G. (ed.),Ceramics in America, University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, pp. 15–40.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 UnitedStates, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 219–233.

Deetz, J. F. (1988b). History and archaeological theory: Walter Taylor revisited.American Antiquity53: 13–22.

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. 1–9.

Deetz, J. F. (1993).Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 1619–1864, Uni-versity Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Delle, J. A. (1995a). The ideology of space. In Leone, M. P., and Silberman, N. A. (eds.),InvisibleAmerica: Unearthing Our Hidden History, Henry Holt, New York, pp. 18–19.

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. 20–21.

Delle, J. A. (1996).An Archaeology of Crisis: The Manipulation of Social Spaces in the Blue MountainCoffee Plantation Complex of Jamaica, 1790–1865, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthro-pology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Delle, J. A. (1998).An Archaeology of Social Space: Analyzing Coffee Plantations in Jamaica’s BlueMountains, Plenum Press, New York.

Deloria, V., Jr. (1992a). Indians, archaeologists, and the future.American Antiquity57: 595–598.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, Universityof Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 209–221.

Dickens, R. S. (ed.) (1982).Archeology of Urban America: The Serrate for Pattern and Process,Academic Press, Orlando, FL.

P1: FPY



Dorst, J. D. (1989).The Written Suburb: An American Site, An Ethnographic Dilemma, University ofPennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Driscoll, S. T. (1992). Discourse on the frontiers of history: Material culture and social reproductionin early Scotland.Historical Archaeology26(3): 12–25.

Dunnell, R. C. (1980). Evolutionary theory and archaeology. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.),Advances inArchaeological Method and Theory, Academic Press, New York, pp. 35–99.

Dunnell, R. C. (1982). Science, social science, and common sense: The agonizing dilemma of modernarchaeology.Journal of Anthropological Research38: 1–25.

Dunnell, R. C. (1989). Aspects of the application of evolutionary theory in archaeology. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (ed.),Archaeological Thought in America, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 35–49.

Epperson, T. W. (1990). Race and the disciplines of the plantation.Historical Archaeology24(4):29–36.

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 Franciscanmissions of Alta California. In Champion, T. C. (ed.),Centre and Periphery, Unwin Hyman,London, pp. 186–206.

Farnsworth, P., and Williams, J. S. (eds.) (1992).The Archaeology of the Spanish Colonial and MexicanRepublican Periods. Historical Archaeology26.

Faulkner, A. (1986). Maintenance and fabrication at Fort Pantagoet, 1635–1654: Products of an Acadianarmorer’s workshop.Historical Archaeology20(1): 63–94.

Feder, K. L. (1994).A Village of Outcasts: Historical Archaeology and Documentary Research at theLighthouse Site, Mayfield, Mountain View, CA.

Feinman, G. M. (1994). Toward an archaeology without polarization: Comments on contemporarytheory. In Marcus, J., and Zeitlin, J. F. (eds.),Caciques and Their People: A Volume in Honorof Ronald Spores, Anthropological Papers, No. 89, Museum of Anthropology, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 13–43.

Feinman, G. M. (1997a). Thoughts on new approaches to combining the archaeological and historicalrecords.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory4: 367–377.

Feinman, G. M. (1997b). Discussant’s comments. Presented at the Symposium on the Edge of Historyin the Desert West, 1997 Chacmool Conference on The Entangled Past. . . Integrating History andArchaeology, 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 Archaeology26(2): 74–98.Friedman, J. (1992). General historical and culturally specific properties of global systems.Review15:

335–372.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

Bulletin7: 51–62.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 Insti-tution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 453–469.

Garman, J. C. (1994). Viewing the color line through the material culture of death.Historical Archae-ology28(3): 74–93.

Garrison, E. G. (1996). Archaeogeophysical and geochemical studies at George Washington CarverNational Monument, Diamond, Missouri.Historical Archaeology30(2): 22–40.

Gates, W. C., and Ormerod, D. E. (1982). The East Liverpool pottery district: Identification of manu-facturers and marks.Historical Archaeology16: 1–358.

Geismar, J. H., and Janowitz, M. F. (eds.) (1993).Health, Sanitation, and Foodways in HistoricalArchaeology. Historical Archaeology27.

P1: FPY


28 Paynter

Gero, J. M. (1989). Producing prehistory, controlling the past: The case of New England beehives. InPinsky, V., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology: Essays in thePhilosophy, History and Socio-politics of Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 96–103.

Gero, J. M., Lacy, D. M., and Blakey, M. (eds.) (1983).The Socio-Politics of Archaeology, ResearchReport 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Gordon, R. B., and Malone, P. M. (1994).The Texture of Industry: An Archaeological View of theIndustrialization of North America, Oxford University Press, New York.

Greenwood, R. S. (1991). Historical archaeology in California.Historical Archaeology25(3): 24–28.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. 373–399.

Hall, M. (1993). The archaeology of colonial settlement in Southern Africa.Annual Review of Anthro-pology22: 177–200.

Handler, J. S. (1997). An African-type healer/diviner and his grave goods: A burial from a plantationslave cemetery in Barbados, West Indies.International Journal of Historical Archaeology1(2):91–130.

Handsman, R. G. (1983). Historical archaeology and capitalism, subscriptions and separations: Theproduction of individualism.North American Archaeologist4(1): 63–79.

Handsman, R. G. (1987). Material things and social relations: Toward an archaeology of “anti-structures.”Conference on New England Archaeology Newsletter16(2): 9–19.

Handsman, R. G., and Harrington, F. (1994). A place for archaeology, an archaeology of place.Con-ference on New England Archaeology Newsletter13: 1–8.

Handsman, R. G., and Leone, M. P. (1989). Living history and critical archaeology in the reconstructionof 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. 117–135.

Handsman, R. G., and Richmond, T. L. (1995). Confronting colonialism: The Mahican andSchaghticoke peoples and us. In Schmidt, P. R., and Patterson, T. C. (eds.),Making AlternativeHistories, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 87–117.

Handsman, R. G., and Silberman, N. A. (1991). John DeForest and US: Critical perspectives on thearchaeological alienation of Palestinian and Algonkian Indian histories. Paper presented at theAnnual 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. 213–229.

Hardesty, D. L. (1988).The Archaeology of Mining and Miners: A View from the Silver State, SpecialPublication 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 UnderwaterArchaeology.Historical Archaeology25(3): 3–6.

Harding, S. (1986).The Science Question in Feminism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Harley, J. B. (1989). Deconstructing the map.Catographica26(2): 1–20.Harley, J. B. (1992). Rereading the maps of the Columbian encounter.Annals of the American Asso-

ciation of Geographers82: 522–536.Harrington, F. (1989a). The archaeological use of landscape treatment in social, economic, and ideo-

logical analyses.Historical Archaeology23(1): 1.Harrington, F. (1989b). The emergent elite in early 18th century Portsmouth society: The archaeology

of the Joseph Sherburne houselot.Historical Archaeology23(1): 2–18.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. 249–266.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



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.

Historical Archaeology24(4): 60–69.Honerkamp, N. (1988). Questions that count in historical archaeology.Historical Archaeology22(1):

5–6.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. 121–146.

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. 243–256.

Huey, P. (1991). The Dutch at Fort Orange. In Falk, L. (ed.),Historical Archaeology in Global Per-spective, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 21–67.

Jameson, F. (1988).The Ideologies of Theory: Essays, 1971–1986, Volume 2, Syntax of History, Uni-versity of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Jamieson, R. W. (1996).The Domestic Architecture and Material Culture of Colonial Cuenca, Ecuador,A.D. 1600–1800, 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 Archaeology27(2): 6–24.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 ofBenin.World Archaeology28: 351–369.

Kelly, K. G. (1997b). Using historically informed archaeology: 17th and 18th century Hueda/Europeaninteraction on the Coast of Benin.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory4: 353–366.

Kelso, G. K. (1994). Palynology in historical rural-landscape studies: Great Meadows, Pennsylvania.American Antiquity59: 359–372.

Kelso, G. K. (1996). Pollen analysis in urban historical landscape research. In De Cunzo, L. A., andHerman, B. L. (eds.),Historical Archaeology and the Study of American Culture, University ofTennessee Press, Knoxville, pp. 259–283.

Kelso, G. K., and Beaudry, M. C. (1990). Pollen analysis and urban land use: The environs of Scottow’sDock in 17th, 18th, and early 19th century Boston.Historical Archaeology24(1): 61–81.

Kelso, G. K., Mrozowski, S. A., and Fisher, W. F. (1987). Contextual archaeology at the Kirk StreetAgent’s House. In Beaudry, M. C., and Mrozowski, S. A. (eds.),Interdisciplinary Investigationsof the Boott Mills, Lowell, Massachusetts, Vol. II: The Kirk Street Agent’s House, North AtlanticRegion, National Park Service, Boston, MA, pp. 97–127.

Kelso, W. M. (1992). Big things remembered: Anglo-Virginian houses, armorial devices and the impactof common sense. In Yentsch, A. E., and Beaudry, M. C. (eds.),The Art and Mystery of HistoricalArchaeology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 127–145.

Kelso, W. M., and Most, R. (eds.) (1990).Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology, UniversityPress of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Kenmotsu, N. (1990). Gunflints: A study.Historical Archaeology24(2): 92–124.Kepecs, S. (1997). Native Yucatan and Spanish influence: The archaeology and history of Chikinchel.

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory4: 307–329.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 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 AncientWorld, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13–24.

Kohl, P. L. (1998). Nationalism and archaeology: On the constructions of nations and the reconstruc-tions of the remote past.Annual Review of Anthropology27: 223–246.

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 Archae-

ological Method and Theory4: 287–306.Kus, S. (1997). Archaeologist as anthropologist: Much ado about something after all?Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory4: 199–213.Landon, D. B. (1996). Feeding colonial Boston: A zooarchaeological study.Historical Archaeology

30: 1–153.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. 16–32.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, 1987–88.Nyame Akuma32: 38–46.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. xvii–xxi.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. 191–200.

Leone, M. P. (1981). Archaeology’s 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. 5–13.

Leone, M. P. (1984). Interpreting ideology in historical archeology: The William Paca garden inAnnapolis, Maryland. In Miller, D., and Tilley, C. (eds.),Ideology, Power and Prehistory,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 25–35.

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,Washington, DC, pp. 415–438.

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 inthe Eastern United States, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 235–261.

Leone, M. P. (1988b). The relationship between archaeological data and the documentary record: 18thcentury gardens in Annapolis, Maryland.Historical Archaeology22(1): 29–35.

Leone, M. P. (1995). A historical archaeology of capitalism.American Anthropologist97: 251–268.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, NewYork, pp. 397–410.

Leone, M. P., and Potter, P. B., Jr. (eds.) (1988).The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archeology inthe Eastern United States, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Leone, M. P., and Preucel, R. W. (1992). Archaeology in a democratic society: A critical theoryperspective. In Wandsnider, L. (ed.),Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology’s Future,Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 20, Southern Illinois University,Carbondale, pp. 115–135.

Leone, M. P., and Silberman, N. A. (1995).Invisible America: Unearthing Our Hidden History, HenryHolt, New York.

Leone, M. P., Potter, P. B., Jr., and Shackel, P. A. (1987). Toward a critical archaeology.CurrentAnthropology28: 283–302.

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. 151–201.

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 andhistorical archaeology.American Antiquity60: 99–217.

P1: FPY



Lister, F. C., and Lister, R. H. (1987).Andalusian Ceramics in Spain and New Spain: A CulturalRegister 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, BocaRaton, FL, pp. 1–6.

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 Theory1: 5–40.Little, B. J., and Shackel, P. A. (1992). Introduction.Historical Archaeology26(3): 1–4.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 andTheory, Vol. 4, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 101–140.

Marshall, Y., and Maas, A. (1997). Dashing dishes.World Archaeology28: 275–290.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. 97–180.McGovern, T. (1990). The archaeology of the Norse North Atlantic.Annual Review of Anthropology

19: 331–351.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 UnitedStates, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 435–480.

McGuire, R. H. (1991). Building power in the cultural landscape of Broome County, New York, 1880 to1940. In McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.),The Archaeology of Inequality, Basil Blackwell,Oxford, pp. 102–124.

McGuire, R. H. (1992a). Archaeology and the first Americans.American Anthropologist94: 816–836.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 Antiquity61:197–216.

McKee, L. (1992). The ideals and realities behind the design and use of 19th century Virginia slave cab-ins. In Yentsch, A. E., and Beaudry, M. C. (eds.),The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology,CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 127–145.

Meinig, D. W. (1986).The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 years of History,Vol. 1. Atlantic America, 1492–1800, 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, 1800–1867, 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. 1–15.

Miller, G. L. (1980). Classification and economic scaling of 19th century ceramics.Historical Archae-ology11: 1–40.

Miller, G. L. (1991). A revised set of cc index values for classification and economic scaling of englishceramics from 1787 to 1880.Historical Archaeology25(1): 1–25.

Miller, N. F. (1989). What mean these seeds: A comparative approach to archaeological seed analysis.Historical Archaeology23(2): 50–59.

Mintz, S. (1977). The so-called world system: Local initiative and Local response.Dialectical Anthro-pology2: 253–270.

Monks, G. G. (1992). Architectural symbolism and non-verbal communication at Upper Fort Garry.Historical Archaeology26(2): 37–57.

Morgen, S. (1997). Constitution of knowledge-producing communities.Anthropology Newsletter38(5): 1, 4–5.

Morison, S. E. (1991).Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus, Little, Brown,Boston.

P1: FPY


32 Paynter

Moussette, M. (1996). The site of the Intendant’s palace in Quebec City: The changing meaning of anurban space.Historical Archaeology30(2): 8–21.

Mrozowski, S. A. (1988). For gentlemen of capacity and leisure: The archaeology of colonial newspa-pers. In Beaudry, M. (ed.),Documentary Archaeology in the New World, Cambridge UniversityPress, New York, pp. 184–191.

Mrozowski, S. A. (1991). Landscapes of inequality. In McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.),TheArchaeology of Inequality, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 79–101.

Mrozowski, S. A. (1993). The dialectics of historical archaeology in a post-processual world.HistoricalArchaeology27(2): 106–111.

Mrozowski, S. A. (1996). Nature, society, and culture: Theoretical considerations in historical archae-ology. In De Cunzo, L. A., and Herman, B. L. (eds.),Historical Archaeology and the Study ofAmerican Culture, Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, DE, pp. 447–472.

Mrozowski, S. A., and Kelso, G. K. (1987). Palynology and archaeobotany of the proposed LowellBoarding House Park Site. In Beaudry, M. C., and Mrozowski, S. A. (eds.),InterdisciplinaryInvestigations of the Boott Mills, Lowell, Massachusetts, Vol. 1. Life at the Boarding Houses,North Atlantic Region, National Park Service, Boston, MA, pp. 139–151.

Mullins, P. R. (1996).The Contradictions of Consumption: An Archaeology of African America andConsumer Culture, 1850–1930, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofMassachusetts, 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 theConnecticut Valley.Dialectical Anthropology18: 247–289.

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,Washington, DC, pp. 313–343.

Orser, C. E., Jr. (1992). Beneath the material surface of things: Commodities, artifacts, and slaveplantations.Historical Archaeology26(3): 95–104.

Orser, C. E., Jr. (1994). Toward a global historical archaeology: An example from Brazil.HistoricalArchaeology28(1): 5–22.

Orser, C. E., Jr. (1996).A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World, Plenum Press, New York.Parrington, M. (1983). Remote sensing.Annual Review of Anthropology12: 105–124.Patterson, T. C. (1990). Some theoretical tensions within and between the processual and postprocessual

archaeologies.Journal of Anthropological Research9: 189–200.Patterson, T. C. (1991). Early colonial encounters and identities in the Caribbean: A review of some

recent works and their implications.Dialectical Anthropology16(1): 1–14.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. 163–211.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 InstitutionPress, Washington, DC, pp. 407–433.

Paynter, R. (1990). Afro-Americans in the Massachusetts historical landscape. In Gathercole, P., andLowenthal, D. (eds.),The Politics of the Past, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 49–62.

Paynter, R. (1992). W. E. B. Du Bois and the material world of African-Americans in Great Barrington,Massachusetts.Critique of Anthropology12: 277–291.

Paynter, R. (1995). Practicing critical archaeology: Problems and methods. Paper presented in thesymposium Archaeology, Architecture, and Artifacts: Critical Approaches to Interpreting thePast at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis.

P1: FPY



Pearson, M. P. (1997). Close encounters of the worst kind: Malagasy resistance and colonial disastersin Southern Madagascar.World Archaeology28: 393–417.

Perry, W. (1996).Archaeology of the Mfecane/Difaqane: Landscape Transformations in Post 15th Cen-tury Southern Africa, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, City University of NewYork, New York.

Perry, W. (1998). Dimensions of power in Swaziland research: Coercion, reflexivity and resistance.Transforming Anthropology7(1): 2–14.

Potter, P. B. (1994).Public Archaeology in Annapolis: A Critical Approach to History in Maryland’sAncient 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,CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 75–99.

Praetzellis, A., Praetzellis, M., and Brown, M. R. (1987). Artifacts as symbols of identity: An examplefrom Sacramento’s gold rush era Chinese community. In Staski, E. (ed.),Living in Cities: CurrentResearch in Urban Archaeology, Special Publication, No. 5, Society for Historical Archaeology,Tucson, AZ, pp. 38–48.

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 UniversityPress, Cambridge, pp. 192–202.

Pulsipher, L. M. (1991). Galways plantation, Montserrat. In Viola, H. J., and Margolis, C. (eds.),Seeds of Change, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 138–159.

Purser, M. (1989). All roads lead to Winnemucca: Local road systems and community material culturein 19th century Nevada. In Carter, T., and Herman, B. L. (eds.),Perspectives in VernacularArchitecture, III, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, pp. 120–134.

Purser, M. (1992). Oral history and historical archaeology. In Little, B. (ed.),Text-Aided Archaeology,CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 25–35.

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. 437–452.

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: Abiological nexus in historical archaeology.The MASCA Journal4(1): 31–36.

Reitz, E. J. (1987). Vertebrate fauna and socioeconomic status. In Spencer-Wood, S. (ed.),ConsumerChoice in Historical Archaeology, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 101–119.

Reitz, E. J., and Scarry, C. M. (1985).Reconstructing Historic Subsistence with an Example from 16thCentury 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.HistoricalArchaeology23: 41–49.

Rice, P., and Van Beck, S. L. (1993). The Spanish colonial kiln tradition of Moquegua, Peru.HistoricalArchaeology27(4): 65–81.

Rothschild, N. A. (1990).New York City Neighborhoods: The 18th Century, Academic Press, SanDiego, CA.

Rothschild, N. A., and Balkwill, D. (1993). The meaning of change in urban faunal deposits.HistoricalArchaeology27(2): 71–89.

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. 261–283.

Rowlands, M., and Warnier, J.-P. (1996). Magical iron technology in the Cameroon grassfields. InArnoldi, M. J., Geary, C. M., and Hardin, K. L. (eds.),African Material Culture, Indiana UniversityPress, Bloomington, pp. 51–72.

P1: FPY


34 Paynter

Rowlands, M. J., Larsen, M., and Kristiansen, K. (eds.) (1987).Centre and Periphery in the AncientWorld, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rubertone, P. E. (1989a). Archaeology, colonialism and 17th century Native America: Towards analternative interpretation. In Layton, R. (ed.),Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions,Unwin and Hyman, London, pp. 32–45.

Rubertone, P. E. (1989b). Landscape as artifact: Comments on “The archaeological use of landscapetreatment in social, economic and ideological analysis.”Historical Archaeology23(1): 50–54.

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.Historical Archaeology26(3): 26–44.

Savulis, E. (1992). Alternative visions and landscapes: Archaeology of the Shaker social order and builtenvironment. 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.Antiquity66: 217–242.

Schiffer, M. B. (1976).Behavioral Archeology, Academic Press, New York.Schiffer, M. B. (1996). Some relationships between behavioral and evolutionary archaeologies.

American Antiquity61: 643–662.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, Schoolof American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 119–147.

Schmidt, P. R., and Childs, S. T. (1995). Ancient African iron production.American Scientist83:524–533.

Schmidt, P. R., and Patterson, T. C. (eds.) (1995).Making Alternative Histories: The Practice ofArchaeology and History in Non-Western Settings, School for American Research Press, SantaFe, NM.

Schneider, J., and Rapp, R. (eds.) (1995).Articulating Hidden Histories: Exploring the Influence ofEric R. Wolf, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Schrire, C. (1991). The historical archaeology of the impact of colonialism in 17th century SouthAfrica. In Falk, L. (ed.),Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, DC, pp. 69–96.

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 ofVirginia, Charlottesville.

Schuyler, R. L. (1970). Historical and historic sites, archeology as anthropology: Basic definitions andrelationships.Historical Archaeology4: 83–89.

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 Papers10:99–129.

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 Archaeology22(1): 36–42.Schuyler, R. L. (1991). Historical archaeology in the American West: The view from Philadelphia.

Historical Archaeology25(3): 7–17.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. 92–118.Shackel, P. A. (1993).Personal Discipline and Material Culture: An Archaeology of Annapolis,

Maryland, 1695–1870, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Shackel, P. A. (1995). Terrible saint: Changing meanings of the John Brown fort.Historical Archaeology

29(4): 11–25.

P1: FPY



Shackel, P. A. (1996).Culture Change and the New Technology: An Archaeology of the Early AmericanIndustrial Era, Plenum, New York.

Shackel, P. A., and Little, B. J. (1992). Post-processual approaches to meanings and uses of materialculture in historical archaeology.Historical Archaeology26(3): 5–11.

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 theModern Middle East, Anchor, New York.

Smith, M. E. (1992). Rhythms of change in postclassic central Mexico: Archaeology, ethnohistory, andthe Braudelian model. In Knapp, A. B. (ed.),Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 51–74.

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 Archaeology22(1): 25–28.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.His-

torical Archaeology24(3): 79–91.Steiner, C. B. (1994).African Art in Transit, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Sued-Badillo, J. (1992). Facing up to Caribbean history.American Antiquity57: 599–607.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 ofArchaeology and History in Non-Western Settings, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe,NM, pp. 25–46.

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, UniversityPress of Virginia, Charlottesville, pp. 1–58.

Thomas, D. H. (ed.) (1989).Columbian Consequences. Volume One: Archaeological and HistoricalPerspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Thomas, D. H. (ed.) (1990).Columbian Consequences: Volume Two: Archaeological and HistoricalPerspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Thomas, D. H. (ed.) (1991).Columbian Consequences. Volume Three: The Spanish Borderland inPan-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 westernNigeria and the middle belt. In Miller, D., Rowlands, M., and Tilley, C. (eds.),Domination andResistance, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 299–315.

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, His-tory 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 Antiquity45:

662–676.

P1: FPY


36 Paynter

Trigger, B. G. (1984). Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist.Man19: 355–370.Trigger, B. G. (1989).A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Trigger, B. G. (1991). Distinguished lecture in archaeology: Constraint and freedom—A new synthesis

for archaeological explanation.American Anthropologist93: 551–569.Turnbaugh, S. P. (1985).Domestic Pottery of the Northeastern United States, 1625–1850, Academic

Press, Oralando, FL.Upton, D. (1985). White and black landscapes in 18th century Virginia.Places: A Quarterly Journal

of Environmental Design2(2): 59–72.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. 51–74.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 andHistory 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 centuryNew York.Historical Archaeology25(4): 69–81.

Wallerstein, I. (1974).The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of theEuropean World-Economy in the 16th Century, Academic Press, New York.

Wallerstein, I. (1980).The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of theEuropean World-Economy, 1600–1750, Academic Press, New York.

Wallerstein, I. (1989).The Modern World-System III: The Second Era of Great Expansion of theCapitalist World-Economy, 1730–1840s, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.

Watson, P. J., and Fotiadis, M. (1990). The razor’s edge: Symbolic-structuralist archaeology and theexpansion of archaeological inference.American Antiquity92: 613–629.

Webster, J. (1997). Necessary comparisons: A post-colonial approach to religious syncretism in theRoman provinces.World Archaeology28: 324–338.

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. 317–342.

Wobst, H. M. (1989). Commentary: A socio-politics of socio-politics in archaeology. In Pinsky, V., andWylie, A. (eds.),Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, Cambridge University Press,New York, pp. 136–140.

Wolf, E. (1982).Europe and the People Without History, University of California Press, Berkeley.Woolf, G. (1997). Beyond Romans and natives.World Archaeology28: 339–350.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. 35–69.

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. 125–149.

Wylie, A. (1992). Rethinking the quincentennial: Consequences for past and present.American Antiq-uity 57: 591–594.

Wylie, A. (1993). Invented lands/discovered pasts: The westward expansion of myth and history.Historical Archaeology27(4): 1–19.

Yamin, R., and Metheny, K. B. (eds.) (1996).Landscape Archaeology: Reading and Interpreting theAmerican Historical Landscape, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Yentsch, A. E. (1988a). Legends, houses, families, and myths: Relationships between material cultureand American ideology. In Beaudry, M. C. (ed.),Documentary Archaeology in the New World,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 5–19.

Yentsch, A. E. (1988b). Farming, fishing, whaling, trading: Land and sea as resource on 18th-centuryCape Cod. In Beaudry, M. C. (ed.),Documentary Archaeology of the New World, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 138–160.

P1: FPY



Yentsch, A. E. (1991). The symbolic divisions of pottery: Sex-related attributes of English and Anglo-American household pots. In McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.),The Archeology of Inequality,Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 192–230.

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: 281–311.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. 60–67.

Date post:	06-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	8 times
Download:	0 times