paynter (2000)

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, and material records have led to a lack of cross talk between these branches of Americanist archaeology. This paper presents recent issues in historical archae-ology, points out areas of common concern, and argues that both archaeologies would benefit from informed discussions about the materiality and history of the pre- and post-Columbian world.

KEY WORDS: landscape; epistemology; history.

INTRODUCTION

In 1493 Columbus set off for North America on a voyage that truly deserves to be part of our public memory, for it, rather than the voyage of 1492, was a harbinger of the world to come. His first voyage of 1492 was a low-budget, three-ship reconnaissance survey. The second voyage began in 1493 with at least 17 ships, 1200 to 1500 men, and explicit plans to establish enterprises to begin the real work of colonization. The goals of the second voyage were those for centuries throughout the Western Hemisphere—find converts and gold; and on Hispaniola, as throughout the Western Hemisphere, conversion took second place to accumulation. The gold, never plentiful, was rapidly depleted through despotic taxes and enforced mining. Seeking an alternative form of accumulation, Columbus enslaved 1500 of Hispaniola’s people. Five hundred were transported to Spain of 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 Americans was not realized, in part because of the colonizers’ practices of terrorizing the

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

1

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

P1: FPY


2 Paynter

local population and savagely exploiting their labor in mines and fields, driving the native population of Hispaniola virtually extinct by 1550. However, and somewhat unwittingly, Columbus did bring the source of Caribbean profits on this second voyage—sugar plants. By 1516 the first capital-intensive sugar mill was established on Hispaniola and by the mid-1500s sugar exports from the island were a major source of Spanish wealth. The decimated indigenous population was not a large enough labor force for this commodity, and thus came to the Western Hemisphere, in chains, the people of Africa who tilled the fields, cut the cane, and worked the mills. The transport of enslaved Africans to Hispaniola was first sanctioned in 1501, and by 1517 a contract was let by the crown of Spain for 4000 Africans(Jane, 1988, pp. 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 by which European culture moved from its position on the periphery of the medieval world (Abu-Lughod, 1989) to become part of the core of our post-Columbian world system. More generally, the late 15th century was the beginning of a historically unique conjunction of forces that resulted in dreams and practices of European global conquest. It began with European advances into Africa, followed shortly thereafter by the invasion of the Americas. Later the peoples of South, East, and Central Asia, and then Oceania, were caught up in what eventually became our world, a world of global scale struggles to extract surpluses, to exert political 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 to them that constitute the subject matter of historical archaeology. That historical archaeology is about the archaeology of European expansion is a thesis with a solid history in the discipline. Initially (and it was only some 30 years ago that the journal Historical Archaeology was founded) there were those who based the discipline’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 Archaeology 27(1), introduced by Cleland (1993), also has a number of articles on the history of the society (see also Deagan, 1982; Little, 1994; Orser, 1996, pp. 1–28; South, 1994). However, many practitioners always saw historical archaeology as staking a claim to a slice of world history largely unexamined by anthropologists. For example, Deetz (1968) early on conceived of the task as the study of Late Man in North America and more recently advocates the study of “the spread of European societies worldwide, be-ginning in the 15th century, and their subsequent development and impact on native peoples in all parts of the world” (Deetz, 1991, p. 1). South (ed., 1977) stresses the importance of studying the British colonial system and not just particular sites, and more recently in studying the energetics of world cultural systems riven by class distinctions (South, 1988). Schuyler (1970, p. 83) succinctly describes 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 and ending 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 the modern English-speaking world, or directly with modern Americans.” For Leone, this problematic provides a place for historical archaeology within anthropology: “it has a special way of analyzing our society” (1977, p. xxi).

Today, many practitioners trained in North America adhere to the position that historical archaeology is about the ways of life of post-Columbian peoples (e.g., Deagan, 1982, 1988; Falk, 1991; Leone, 1995; Orser, 1996). Less 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 science perspectives dominate the conception of politics and economy, others have argued for the relevancy of any of a number of marxian and other critical approaches (e.g., Leone, 1995; McGuire and Paynter, 1991; Orser, 1988). Theoretical approaches rarely dominate the discussion in historical archaeology as most of what historical archaeologists have done is the very familiar work of “archaeography” (Deetz, 1988b, p. 18), the detailing of aspects of the post-Columbian way of life. Thus, much of what is done in historical archaeology is what is done in any archaeology, teasing out the methodological issues about interpreting material remains with the added issue of the interplay of documentary and material sources of information [see Little (1994) and Orser (1996) for very useful overviews of the intellectual currents in historical archaeology].

What is the place of the post-Columbian world in the discipline of anthropo-logical archaeology? It should represent an important subject matter for a discipline interested in a comparative perspective on such matters as faction process, state formation, world systems, and identity construction (e.g., Blanton et al., 1996; Brumfiel, 1992; Brumfiel and Fox, 1994; Chase-Dunn, 1992; Friedman, 1992; Patterson and Gailey, 1987; Rowlands et al., 1987; Yoffee, 1995). Nonetheless, the post-Columbian world constitutes an understudied subject in anthropological archaeology (cf. Patterson, 1993). It is understudied, perhaps, in much the same way the ethnography of Europe and of the United States are understudied due to anthropology’s aversion to the ways of life of the West (Cole, 1977; Wolf, 1982). It is also, perhaps, understudied by anthropological archaeologists because its use of documents seems somehow to circumvent the difficult task of material 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 have been seeking a disciplinary understanding that bridges between the concerns of anthropology and history, that uses objects to study the mediation of actions and

P1: FPY


4 Paynter

meanings. This can be accomplished only if its analysis of the past 500 years approaches the creation of a vast array of ways of life through the understanding that comes from the anthropological archaeological perspectives of comparison and material analysis.

With its emphasis on studying the West, using documents and objects, histori-cal archaeology inhabits a liminal space in the anthropological imagination (Orser, 1996, p. 10). And, this liminal position of historical archaeology, caught between history and anthropology, between culture and action, between ethnohistory and ethnography, between the past and the present, has bedeviled my writing of this review. How do I simultaneously address the concerns of anthropological archae-ologists, historians, historical archaeological colleagues, and colleagues in other disciplines interested in the particular versions of theory to which I subscribe? Moreover, since historical archaeology is so clearly a discipline in the making, how do I write a review knowing that it is from an admittedly constrained position (Harding, 1986; Morgen, 1997)?

Part of the answer is to note what is not being reviewed here and in a sub-sequent article. Specifically, I have tried to cover topics as they are addressed by historical archaeologists. I do not take on a comprehensive study of how histo-rians and social theorists have taken on the post-Columbian world. However, for areas that have only recently begun to receive historical archaeology’s attention, especially with regards to framing the discussion, I draw on historians and social theorists who open up particularly useful lines of research.

Another part of the answer is to recognize some of my constraints. I princi-pally study the post-Columbian world as it has played out in the North American northeast. Although I try to bring a global perspective to this task, my thinking is enmeshed within the practices of historical archaeology in this area, where I also live and work in an anthropology department. As a result, the political movements and the intellectual milieu all contribute to how I understand the past of this region and its place in the world. Additionally, I am interested in developing a critical ar-chaeology, one that confronts the ideological structures and practices that promote inequality in this region and in the globe at large. Thus, I am interested in develop-ing understandings of the recent past that work against the fairly common cultural givens in the United States of global dominance based on inevitable technological progress, grounded fuzzily in biological determinisms concerning racial and gen-der superiority (e.g., Escobar, 1995; Patterson, 1995). Since deconstructing these ethnocentric common senses can be at the heart of the anthropological enterprise, I want to contribute to the project of bringing this sort of anthropological perspective to historical 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 and national 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 I believe 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 gender relations spun out of northwestern Europe and North America, I also acknowledge that the particulars at any one place will be interestingly different from how things worked themselves out in these areas. Learning these additional histories is an important task for historical archaeology. Moreover, in the vein of anthropological inquiry, learning about histories elsewhere on the globe will affect 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 areas themselves (Schmidt and Patterson, 1995). Building this larger set of understand-ings is the unfinished task of historical archaeology; and as a result, this paper is far from a complete synthesis. It is a review given these concerns, for the sake of colleagues in anthropological archaeology interested in social stratification, regardless of whether their data include written documents.

The review is developed in two articles. The first considers the practice of historical archaeology, the issues of contemporary interest, the debates of contem-porary concern, and the articulation of historical archaeology and anthropological archaeology. The second, which will appear in a subsequent issue of the journal, considers the history of the last 500 years, as seen from the vantage point of his-torical archaeology. A recent literature section for both these articles accompanies the second article, “People and Processes of the Post-Columbian World.”

GLOBAL RESEARCH

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

In North America in addition to the English, the Dutch and the French also were significant colonial powers, and their material remains have come 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; Praetzellis et 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 of plenary 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 and Maas, 1997).

For the areas of North and South America influenced by the Spanish Empire the articles in Thomas’s (1989, 1990, 1991) quincentennial volumes on the Spanish Borderlands are indispensable contributions and reviews (see also Farnsworth and Williams, 1992). Kathleen Deagan, as reported in a number of publications (e.g., 1983, 1985; Deagan and Cruxent, 1993), has been directing research on and writ-ing detailed case studies and regional syntheses about the Spanish Caribbean and Florida. Kowalewski (1997) is bringing the notable studies of prehistoric Oaxaca into the historic period with considerations of regional change in the post-Columbian world. Sued-Badillo (1992, 1995) and Rouse (1986, 1992) of-fer contrasting versions of the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean first caught up in European colonial schemes (see also Patterson, 1991). Jones (1989) has begun the study of the long history of Spanish-Mayan domination and resistance, and Kepecs (1997) and Alexander (1997) have conducted regional-scale 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 extensively on plantation life and its impacts on the African population in Barbados. Galways Plantation on Montserrat has been studied by Pulsipher (e.g., 1991). Orser (1994) and Agorsah (1993, 1995) have studied maroon populations in Brazil and the Caribbean, respectively (see also Funari, 1996). Schaedel (1992), summarizing the sparse archaeological studies from historical South America, sets out a sweeping agenda for a historical archaeology of the past 500 years. Rice has been 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) offers analyses of social life in Ecuador, with attention to gender relations. In lowland South America Vargas Arenas and Sanoja (e.g., Vargas Arenas, 1995) are bringing their distinctive and sophisticated theoretical approach of “social archaeology” to understand the colonial period, especially in its urban manifestations.

An extensive literature exists on the British Isles that self-identifies as being about post-Medieval archaeology (e.g., Crossley, 1989). Among this important body of information, M. 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 British Isles]. Mangan’s study of the landscapes of Catalonia during the transition from feudalism to capitalism (1994) is one of the few historical archaeological works in English from continental Europe [see Crumley (1994), McGovern (1990), and Woolf (1997) for overviews of precursor situations]. Baram (1996) and Silberman (1989; Handsman and Silberman, 1991) have begun to take apart how European capitalism came to Palestine and how this archaeology figures in the contemporary state-building efforts in the region.

P1: FPY



Southern Africa has developed an extensive literature on what Hall calls the archaeology of impact (1993). Some of the works are singular contributions to ar-chaeological theory deserving broad readership. Hall’s (1992) study of the ideology of race coded in the material record of South Africa, for instance, is an important theoretical intervention into the interpretation of meaning using material culture. Carmel Schrire’s (1995) extraordinary book informs us about the construction of race and apartheid with first-rate interpretations of the past and provocatively reflexive understandings of the conduct of archaeology (see also Schrire, 1991, 1992) Warren Perry’s (1996) archaeologically based reconsideration of Shaka and the Zulu state demonstrates the inextricable role of European slavers in this pro-cess, an interpretation that should affect the ethnology of state origins. West and Central Africa have a growing body of research. De Corse (1999) has surveyed West African archaeology with an eye to interpreting the material remains of North American and Caribbean African-American peoples. The Kingdom of Benin has been the subject of archaeological research by Kelly (1997a,b). Rowlands (1989) and Thomas-Emeagwali (1989) lay out the contours for a historical archaeology of Cameroon and Nigeria, respectively, that take into account the long-term processes of political economy indigenous to the area, and the distinctive nature of their inter-digitation with European accumulation. Studies of modern material culture, such as 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 the historical period. Peter Schmidt (1978, 1995; Schmidt and Childs, 1995), in his significant body of work on East Africa, has sought to uncover the dynamics of these societies hidden in colonial “histories.” As in West Africa, understanding these hidden histories is a necessary precursor for conducting a historical archae-ology of the area, one that will necessarily involve understanding the dynamics of the Islamic world system (see also LaViolette et al., 1989; Pearson, 1997). Of course Africa north of the Sahara has a long history of contact with Europeans. Nonetheless, the most recent stage of European expansion began in the 1400s with the Portuguese invasion of Morocco, an episode given exemplary consideration in Redman’s (1986) study of the strategic town of Qsar es-Seghir (see also Boone et al., 1990).

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

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

P1: FPY


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 postcolonial periods might look like.

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

A very different narrative has been offered by Patterson (1993, pp. 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, South America, and Mesoamerica, concludes with a chapter entitled “Civilization and Its Discontents: The Archaeology of Capitalism.” He surveys the global development of capitalism as “an economic system : : : concerned with the production and sale of commodities in markets” (Patterson, 1993, p. 350). In this narrative, the plunder of mineral wealth from the Americas and the theft of African labor provide the basis for mercantile accumulation in northwestern Europe from the 15th through the 18th centuries. Industrial production in northwestern Europe spread throughout the globe in the 19th and 20th centuries, knitting the world together through the strands of the market and the politics of imperialism and neocolonialism.

Two key points underwrite Patterson’s narrative: the post-Columbian world is the story of the rise of capitalism, and this story must be told on a world stage. The former is a point assertively argued by Leone and Potter (1988, p. 19): “Whether or not historical archaeology is to be an archaeology of the emergence

P1: FPY



and development of capitalism has been settled in the affirmative.” A number of authors have taken up the charge to understand capitalism from the perspective of material culture (Beaudry et al., 1991; Handsman, 1983; Leone, 1995; McGuire, 1988; Orser, 1988; Paynter, 1988). Indeed, Leone (1988b) makes use of the sys-tematic tendency of capitalist political economies to go through crises to provide a causal argument for Deetz’s culture periods. Patterson’s second point about the world scale of the phenomenon, and hence of the discipline, reverberates with a large body of theoretical work (e.g., Brewer, 1980), such as 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-scale accumulation and accompanying culture of Eurocentrism, and work on precapital-ist world systems (e.g., Abu-Lughod, 1989; Blanton et al., 1993; Champion, 1989; Chase-Dunn, 1992; Rowlands et al., 1987). Historical archaeology has sought to articulate world-scale and local processes in such studies as 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 on New England regional settlement patterns (Paynter, 1982, 1985).

A point widely recognized, though too often honored in the breach, is that world-scale processes must be understood as the articulation of European and in-digenous processes, and not simply the response to the imperatives of European political 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 imagine the process of cultural interaction. Most commonly, this is addressed with notions of assimilation and acculturation. However, Wolf (1982, pp. 6–7) warns about the dangerous metaphors that underlie such constructs. He cautions that understanding world cultural history as the collision of so many differently colored billiard balls, heretofore isolated cultures, blinds us to the processes at the core of historical change—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-be colonizing Europeans and their targets sound too much like the comforting click of billiard balls on the cosmic billiard table of world history. Schuyler (1991) captures the scale of the process with his idea of “ethnohistoric interaction spheres,” though such a conceptualization runs the risk of becoming a very much bigger billiard ball. Perry (1996) reconceptualizes the colonial period of intense interaction and reconfiguration, drawing on the work of Hall (1993, pp. 183–186) and N. Thomas (1991), as a period of impact and entanglement. These metaphors have the merit of suggesting the violence of the interactions and the agency of both the indigenous and European cultures. That historical archaeology has yet to find a replacement for the bland “Contact period” does not hide the discipline’s recognition that the post-Columbian world is about the sudden and persistent intertwining of formerly unrelated historical processes. This intertwining affected historical trajectories in

P1: FPY


10 Paynter

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

Charles Orser (1996) has recently articulated an important sustained vision of a global archaeology. He makes use of a mutualist social theory to cast a net of relations—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 this world. Along with reviewing work by other historical archaeologists reflecting these themes, he presents his very interesting and recent work on the maroon community of Palmares in Brazil and famine-period villages in Ireland by way of illustrating global networks. Along the way, the reader is introduced to the history of historical archaeology and post-Medieval archaeology, the intricacies of the present debates in historical archaeology on interpreting meaning, and the devel-opment of landscapes as important objects of study. Though I do not use his notion of “haunts” to set my theory in motion or frame my discussion in the terms of his four themes, there is much in his work that reverberates with my understandings of the post-Columbian world. Orser has produced a very provocative introduction to historical archaeology as well as a significant conceptualization of how to study global cultures; it is a good starting place for further study of this subdiscipline.

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

An Ontology of Objects and Landscapes

Historical archaeology is both blessed and cursed with studying a way of life awash in material culture (Deetz, 1973). Not surprisingly, much of the work of historical archaeology involves detailing these objects, work that discloses who made what, when, where, and how it was used. Noel Hume’s (1969) classic com-pendium still stands as a much needed reference and paradigm for this impor-tant work (e.g., Beaudry et al., 1988; Carskadden and Gartley, 1990; Gates and Ormerod, 1982; Jones and Sullivan, 1985; Kenmotsu, 1990; Lister and Lister, 1987). Such studies also seek to link the objects, their makers, and their users to the larger economic and social forces (e.g., D. Miller, 1987, 1997; G. Miller, 1991; Turnbaugh, 1985). The impact of anthropological archaeology can be seen in the analysis of faunal and floral remains to disclose dimensions of subsistence (e.g., Reitz and Scarry, 1985), especially within a commodified food system (e.g., Bowen, 1992; Geismar and Janowitz, 1993; Landon, 1996; Reitz, 1987; Rothschild and Balkwill, 1993), to analyze landscaping and gardening practices (e.g., Kelso,

P1: FPY



1994, 1996; Kelso and Beaudry, 1990; Kelso et al., 1987; Miller, 1989; Mrozowski, 1991; Mrozowski and Kelso, 1987), to investigate disease (e.g., Mrozowski, 1991; Reinhard et al., 1986), and as the raw material in manufacturing (e.g., Claassen, 1994).

How then does the researcher move from this myriad of detail to understanding action and thought in the past? Recent work in historical archaeology has developed new ontologies as well as analyses of new classes of information beyond the mainstays of portable artifact analyses. There is considerable overlap with similar discussions in anthropological archaeology that have called for new methods for studying the material world and new approaches to materiality that have expanded definitions of data. In historical archaeology, these critiques have addressed the traditional “fall-out” models of material culture and added cultural landscapes to the domain of archaeological analysis.

The traditional ontological precept relating culture and objects is the notion that culture, the subject of inquiry, leaves material correlates. This fall-out model of material culture relations is exemplified in idealist theories, such as Deetz’s (1967, pp. 45–49, 1977) notion of mental templates and worldviews that guide the production 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 operating from either of these theoretical positions is to discover the culture by studying the material patterns (e.g., Schiffer, 1976).

Increasingly, historical archaeologists are writing with a different ontology, one that embeds material culture within systems of meaning and action, one that gives objects an active voice in cultural practices (Hodder, 1986, 1989; Shanks and Tilley, 1987a,b; Tilley, 1990; Wobst, 1977). From this angle, studying material cul-ture is not about studying the residue of culture, but is about studying an important aspect of culture itself. The problem for the investigator is less to imagine material transforms or implications and more to imagine intricate and repetitive sequences of human-object interaction that result in the construction of meaning embedded in social relations. In historical archaeology, authors have investigated the role of objects with concepts of discourse, habitus, cultural biography, resistance, and ritual (for a review see Shackel and Little, 1992). For instance, Hall (1992) recasts material evidence of racisms and their concomitant resistances from a Deetzian structural analysis to one based in the analysis of discourses. Nassaney and Abel (1993) investigate sabotage at a cutlery factory as a significant human–object in-teraction in capitalist societies. De Cunzo (1995) studies the rituals that weave together people, objects and ideologies as they were used by the middle class reformers to address the “problem” of prostitution in Philadelphia. Delle (1996, 1998) expands on the work of Harvey (1989), Soja (1989), and Lefebvre (1991) to understand the active use of space in structuring Jamaican coffee plantations (see also McKee, 1992; Orser, 1988). Orser (1992) advocates the use of the notion of cultural biography to capture the shifting meanings objects take during their path from production to forgotten trash.

P1: FPY


12 Paynter

Of all the objects studied by historical archaeologists, space has been go-ing through a significant rethinking, from a neutral and objective dimension of measurement to a culturally mediated object. The reconceptualization is to such an extent that one might say that a whole new class of artifact has been “discov-ered,” namely, the landscape (e.g., Beaudry, 1986; Delle, 1996, 1998; Handsman and Harrington, 1994; Harrington, 1989a; Hood, 1996; Kelso and Most, 1990; Mrozowski, 1991; Rubertone, 1989b; Yamin and Metheny, 1996). Hood (1996, p. 121) refers to these nuanced notions of space as “cultural landscapes : : : [places that] : : : physically embody the history, structure and contexts” of a given way of life. For Rubertone (1989b, p. 50) these cultural landscapes have been “shaped and modified by human actions and conscious design to provide housing, accommo-date the system of production, facilitate communication and transportation, mark social inequalities, and express aesthetics.” Not restricted to sites alone, Hood (1996, p. 122) notes that “landscapes exist in a continuum of human perception and usage” ranging from formally planned spaces, such as gardens, to seemingly natural places, such as abandoned fields and pastures (1996, p. 122). In between these extremes are “a very large category of spaces that have been increasingly referred to by such terms as houselots, yardscapes, streetscapes, vernacular land-scapes, and so on” (Hood, 1996, p. 122). All of these have come increasingly under the attention of archaeological investigation.

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

Archaeologists have studied various places on the North American 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; Cressy et al., 1982; Dickens, 1982; Harrington, 1989b; McGuire, 1991; Mrozowski, 1991; Rothschild, 1990; Shackel, 1996; Staski, 1987; Upton, 1992), towns and villages (e.g., Adams, 1977; Wurst, 1991), seaports (e.g., Harrington, 1992), maroon communities (e.g., Agorsah, 1993, 1995; Feder, 1994; Orser, 1996), logging camps (Franzen, 1992), forts (e.g., Clements, 1993; Faulkner, 1986; Monks, 1992; South, 1977; Staski, 1990), gardens (e.g., Kelso and Most, 1990; Leone, 1988b), and the walls, roads, canals, and railroads used to demarcate and flow between these places (e.g., Gordon and Malone, 1994, pp. 55–223; Leone, 1978; Samson, 1992). Farmsteads, plantations, and homelots are the most frequent form of report, and thus there are too many good examples to cite [Adams (1990) and Worrell et al. (1996) are good overviews].

P1: FPY



The investigation of landscapes has led to the development and modification of various techniques and methods. For instance, remote sensing and geophysical survey have been put to good use in site survey (Clark, 1990; Garrison, 1996; Parrington, 1983). The complex stratigraphy of historical-period sites has bene-fited from analysis using Harris matrices (Harris, 1979; Harris et al., 1993). As noted above, palynological analysis has provided evidence of the flora on previ-ous landscapes. The primary documents of maps and papers have given insight into the minds of cartographers, developers, architects, and preservationists (e.g., Delle, 1995a,b; Harley, 1989, 1992; Paynter, 1995; Potter, 1994; Seasholes, 1988). Though these studies provide a better understanding of how space was represented, we have only begun to explore their connections to what Harvey (1989, pp. 220– 221) refers to as “spaces of representation (imagination).” Savulis (1992) considers such landscapes of the imagination in her study of Shaker poetry and spirit draw-ing. Investigating these ideologies of space might take clues from Williams’s study of the ideology of the city and the countryside (1973), Fryer’s investigations of gender and space in the work of Edith Wharton and Willa Cather (1986), and Dorst’s study of the positioning of Chadds Ford in the high culture of the Wyeths and the popular culture of “historical” America (1989). These concerns bridge well to work done on the shifting meaning of historical landscapes in Great Britain, especially by Barbara Bender in her original study of Stonehenge (1993, 1998; see also Tilley, 1994).

What we do know is that these rich spatial ideologies gave meaning to the physical objects people built and encountered. Although yet to be synthesized, these encounters happened in a spatial terrain that was simultaneously part of a system, such as that so masterfully described and analyzed in Meinig’s geograph-ical history of North America (1986, 1993) and fractured into parts, as presented in 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 state formation, race, gender, and class were enmeshed in these spatialities so that the cultural landscape was constructed and experienced differently depending upon whether one was white, black or red, whether one was rich or poor, and whether one was male or female (e.g., De Cunzo, 1995; Epperson, 1990; Paynter, 1992; Upton, 1985, 1992).

Documents and Meanings

Historical archaeology also is blessed and cursed with a form of data dis-tinct from that studied by most anthropological archaeologists—written documents (Deagan, 1988; Schuyler, 1988). Hodder (1986, p. 141) damns with faint praise the volume of data and the presence of texts as providing the potential for more richly networked data. As a result, historical archaeology has an “easier approach”

P1: FPY


14 Paynter

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

Mary Beaudry (1988, p. 1) has productively criticized common misuses of documents: “Many view archival material as a control lacking in prehistory : : : they may use historical sites as test cases for models developed in prehistory; or they set out to discover whether archaeological evidence properly reflects the documentary record or vice versa.” She argues that documents are complex artifacts reflecting a partial reality and need to be paid their intellectual due. Little (1992, p. 4) sim-ilarly criticizes simplistic uses of documents by archaeologists: “Documentary and archaeological data may be thought of as interdependent and complemen-tary, or as independent and contradictory. Oddly enough, both of these views are viable. : : :” Historical archaeologists argue today that documents must be seen as a problematic source of information in and of themselves requiring careful 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) have edited important volumes that explore methods to meld documents and objects.

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

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

P1: FPY



probate and/or tax and/or census class assessments (Miller, 1980; Spencer-Wood, 1987). Points of disjuncture typically suggest problems of sample bias on the part of the material record, a methodological stance that contributes to the position by many historians (and historical anthropologists) that anything they can learn from objects is already known in the documents. Leone makes a key argument. First, he acknowledges that documents and objects are not really independent lines of evidence; they are, after all, the results of people participating in the same cultural practices. Nonetheless, they track very different moments of that process subject to very different biases and social processes. If, as Leone argues, they are thought of “as if” they are independent, one can guard against unwarranted functionalism. Guarding against undue functionalism is important. When documents and objects tell different stories, especially stories in which one record is met with silence in the other, this may be due to sample problems, or it may be due to the operations of that past way of life, operations that seek to hide, silence, and thereby dominate. In short, points of mismatch between objects and documents can be used to track the work of social power.

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

Historical archaeology also finds itself enmeshed in more familiar debates about epistemology. The common anthropological archaeology epistemology of testing and verification has been argued for in historical archaeology; as in an-thropological archaeology, there has been the recent advocacy of an interpretive epistemology that seeks an insider’s view of these past cultures (e.g., Beaudry, 1996; Cleland, 1988; South, 1977; Yentsch, 1994). The promise of an interpretive approach, as Hodder notes above, is all the stronger because of the presence of documents that give access to an emic perspective, the meaning systems of past peoples (Schuyler, 1977). This possibility for the study of meaning is the source of some of the most intense debates and fruitful methodological developments in the subdiscipline. Little and Shackel (1992) cogently parse the debates in histori-cal archaeology, cataloging the various perspectives as processual approaches that consider 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 eschew the distinction between action and meaning (e.g., Little and Shackel, 1992, p. 1).

Despite the heat generated by these arguments, there are points of general agreement among the holders of these different positions. For one there is consid-erable agreement that the meanings of things need to be and can be considered in historical archaeology. The reason historical archaeologists can use objects to approach meaning is because of a general agreement that objects are recursive, that “objects recycle culture, returning it to the concrete and empirical world where it may be experienced, learned, and changed” (see also Leone, 1986, pp. 416–417; Little and Shackel, 1992, p. 1). Moreover, there is agreement that the meanings of objects can emerge from studying objects in their contextual relations. Dis-agreement exists about exactly what the relevant contexts are, whose meanings are interpretable, whether the perceptions of some factions dominate those of all members of society, and whether the interpretation of meaning is an end in itself or part of a larger enterprise (Beaudry, 1996). A wide range of methods (e.g., Leone and Potter, 1988; Shackel and Little, 1992) has been suggested to get at meaning, including structural analysis (e.g., Deetz, 1977; Yentsch, 1991), con-textual analysis (e.g., Beaudry, 1993; Beaudry et 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 hermeneutic readings (Garman, 1994). The history of the debates is well-tilled ground, worth the attention of any archaeologist interested in linking meaning and material re-mains (e.g., Beaudry, 1996; Beaudry et 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 how archaeologists construct meanings today, resulting in experimentations in writing archaeology. Some of the strongest writing that makes implicit use of the idea of “cables of inference” can be found in the work of Anne Yentsch (1988a,b, 1994). Be the subject old houses in New England, fishing communities of Cape Cod, or the relations between masters and slaves, Europeans and Africans, whites and blacks, Yentsch builds strong cables that disclose in intricate interweavings the texture of past lives, structures, and histories.

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

P1: FPY



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 on himself and his reader a confrontation with the texture and the humanity of the African and African-American people who constructed these distinctive ceramic vessels. Ferguson (1992) also offers another important departure from standard so-cial scientific prose in historical archaeology, a strong authorial voice. In a striking conclusion, Ferguson relates some of his personal experiences in the desegragating South, experiences that unite personal, political, and structural history to give an urgency to his inquiry into African American folkways. A similar strong voice can be found in the work of Schrire (1995), who recounts the enmeshment of her historical archaeology of South Africa with her life experiences within South Africa’s various faces of prejudice. Far more than the professional reminiscences (e.g., Binford, 1972) or fictional parables (e.g., Flannery, 1976), these strong voices and experimental writing techniques seek to convince us about the past, and our own practices, in new ways. This marks quite an epistemological distance for a discipline to travel given that its leading journal advised authors to avoid the use of the first person pronoun in submitted articles (Anonymous, 1991, p. 124).

From landscapes to self-reflection, historical archaeology has been discover-ing new ways to open up its subject matter, to give a more textured understanding of its subject, and to be responsive to intellectual currents in the broader disciplines of anthropology, history, and contemporary academic ideology. In all these issues there are many parallels between work in historical archaeology and in anthropo-logical archaeology. There is one additional way in which, at least as practiced in North America, these two subdisciplines differ—the treatment of the cultural relationship between the archaeologist and the people of the past.

PARTICIPANTS AND OBSERVERS

Let us for the moment construe this problem [of writing history] in a more empirical or commonsense fashion as being simply that of our relationship to the past, and of our possibility of understanding the latter’s monuments, artifacts, and traces. The dilemma of any “historicism” can then be dramatized by the peculiar, unavoidable, yet seemingly unresolvable alternation between Identity and Difference. (Jameson, 1988, p. 150)

Archaeology often assumes a difference between the people of the present and the people of the past. An alternative position recognizes the significance of identity in the construction of the past: “Archaeological interpretations are as much a function of the social setting in which they are formulated and presented as they are of the social matrix from which they are excavated” (Leone and Preucel, 1992, p. 119). Obviously, thinking about history involves the simultaneous recog-nition of identity and difference, a complex problem in and of itself (e.g., Gero, 1989; Gero et al., 1983; Leone, 1981, 1986; Lowenthal, 1985; Patterson, 1995; Shanks and Tilley, 1987a; Tilley, 1989; Wobst, 1989). The problem takes on a

P1: FPY


18 Paynter

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

Within historical archaeology, studies that take on this dilemma are referred to as “critical archaeology.” Themes in a critical historical archaeology include bringing class relations into view in a society that insists on the omnipresence of the middle class, bringing people of color into view in a culture that is Eurocentric, arguing against the master themes of triumphalist history (Hu-DeHart, 1995), such as “the vanishing Indian” or the inevitability of progress, and identifying the historical contexts that gave rise to key and seemingly universal metaphors that undergird such narratives, such as the naturalness of individuals and the reality of objective time.

Handsman and Leone (1989) present a particularly clear brief for and exem-plification of the method of critical historical archaeology. They begin by noting that “there is a remarkable separation in capitalist societies between life as it is, life as it is thought to be, and life as it might have been” (p. 118). Life as it is thought to be, ideology, is taken to be an understanding that serves the interests of society’s elites. Critical social science has as its goal the unmasking of these ideologies, and critical archaeology’s task “is to analyze how modern ideology is projected into the past and how that projection reproduced present society’s relations of domination” (p. 119). The object of analysis should be the “inter-pretive models, museum interpretations, or more generally, the stories that are told about the prehistoric and historic past” (p. 119). In these stories and inter-pretations, archaeologists should look for how life is constructed as timeless or matter of fact, masking separations and oppositions that might have led to different presents. These timeless qualities specifically hide the historical contingency of today’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, they argue, should be presented in equally public and accessible forms to empower the general public. The end goal of such public presentations should be not only negatively critical, but also positively critical, by suggesting that there have been many possible ways of life and that the future also is rich with possibility (p. 119). Handsman and Leone go on to make particularly deft analyses of how exhibits about such diverse figures as George Washington and working-class Connecticut clock makers are used by and mystified in service to the ideological precepts of in-dividualism. Their analyses include counter-exhibits, whose aim would be to alter the impression that the social world is made up of “historically-constituted, self-determining, sentient : : : individuals [who] are assumed to have existed in all times and places” (p. 133) and replace this with an understanding that our conception of

P1: FPY



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

A number of studies take the analysis of public exhibits and monuments as points of departure for a critical archaeology. For instance, Michael Blakey (1990) analyzes the presentation of whites and people of color at the Smithsonian Museums in Washington, D.C. He condemns the consistent association of Euro-Americans with the powerful technological and intellectual strands of American national identity and Afro-Americans and Native Americans with the ethnically and emotionally distinct and passive ways of life that somehow cohabited America but were separate from and insignificant to the formation of an American identity. I (Paynter, 1990) took the public historical landscape of Massachusetts, its museums, living history exhibits, and National Register sites, as a text that wrote Afro-American life out of the history of the north, thereby recreating a distinctly northern form of white racism. Paul Shackel (1995) uses the changing treatment of the engine house at Harper’s Ferry where John Brown made his famous stand to penetrate the shifting contours of armed resistance in the national story of the Civil War.

Parker Potter (1994), in his monograph on critical historical archaeology, be-gins with ethnography rather than exhibits (see also Leone et al., 1987). He studied the cultural history of Annapolis as part of the Archaeology at Annapolis Project. The “past” has long been used by elite Annapolitans to establish their social po-sition. One particularly significant contemporary use, in an economy dominated by tourists and nonlocal state legislators, separates those knowledgeable about colonial artifacts and architecture (the locals) from other more transient elites (the legislators). Another use of the past is to present George Washington as a model of appropriate tourist behavior. In an attempt to unmask these ideological uses of the past, Archaeology at Annapolis developed archaeological tours that acknowledged the social position of the interpreter and the visitor in the present, with the goal of teaching about how knowledge of the past is created. The model narratives explic-itly seek to historicize modern patterns of behavior, such as dining etiquette and equipment, and architectural codes and conventions, by identifying their origins during the Georgian revolution, and to disclose the historically inaccurate con-struction of George Washington as a “tourist.” Potter also presents the instruments used to evaluate the significant impacts these tours had on the general public. The study, framed with informative discussions about the philosophies of critical re-search, the history of historical archaeology, and the history of Annapolis, is an engaging and important book, of significance for any archaeologist interested in how the past and present interweave.

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

P1: FPY


20 Paynter

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

HISTORIES AND ARCHAEOLOGIES

Given the range of issues confronted by historical archaeology, why is there the persistent sense that it is somehow lacking? I referred at the start to the pervasive sense that historical archaeology is, in Barbara Little’s phrase, the junior varsity of anthropological archaeologies (1994, p. 30). This sense also is found within the field. In 1987, the Society for Historical Archaeology ran a plenary session about the “Questions that Count in Historical Archaeology” (Honerkamp, 1988). A general concern for the lack of theoretically significant contributions by historical archaeologists was expressed by the distinguished presenters, captured explicitly in Deagan’s (1988, p. 7) observation that “historical archaeology has not produced the original and unparalleled insights into human cultural behavior or evolution that we might expect to result from the unique perspective and data base of the field.” Various sources of difficulty were identified, including being trapped with methodologies generated by prehistorians and limited for historical archaeology’s documentary, oral, and material data base (Deagan, 1988), too great a concern with description, especially in the name of particularism and the idiosyncratic, at the expense of concern with enduring issues of culture process (Cleland, 1988; South, 1988), and an unwarranted sense of deference to anthropological archaeology and history, characterized by Schuyler (1988, pp. 36–37) as the Pseudo-Processual Progress Proffered by Prehistorians complex and the need to “stop trying to make uncalled for offerings at the altar of Clio.” Remedies offered by all the authors include making use of the unique data bases of historical archaeology and directing attention to issues of broad anthropological concern (Leone, 1988a; Mrozowski, 1988). And yet these remedies are all directed toward celebrating some future, rather than some past, contribution by historical archaeology.

Trigger (1984), Patterson (1995), and Kohl (1998) embed archaeological theory within the context of Western culture, and their perspectives put the status of historical archaeology in a different light. Trigger (1984, p. 616) distinguishes different archaeologies, appropriate to the “roles that particular nation states play, economically, politically, and culturally, as interdependent parts of the modern world-system.” One is the nationalist archaeology, whose primary function “is to bolster the pride and morale of nations or ethnic groups” (p. 620). Colonialist

P1: FPY



archaeologies “by emphasizing the primitiveness and lack of accomplishments of [colonized] peoples [seek] to justify their own poor treatment of them” (p. 620). Imperialist archaeologies seek to understand and underpin why imperial power has its worldwide sway. American archaeology began as a colonialist endeavor but, with the advent of the New Archaeology, took on the characteristics of an imperialist archaeology. “Its emphasis on nomothetic generalizations implies not simply that the study of native American prehistory as an end in itself is trivial but also that this is true of the investigation of any national tradition” (p. 620). Kohl’s (1998) recent consideration of Trigger’s argument notes the variety of ways that nation-states have used archaeology to underwrite their legitimacy, noting the wider range of nationalist archaeologies than apparent in Trigger’s analysis. Seeking to escape an involvement in politics by developing an archaeology that trivializes any particular history seems, on the basis of the studies by Trigger, Patterson, and Kohl, unlikely to succeed. Rather, the move to trivializing national traditions seems to be the ideological device of elevating the interest of a segment of world society to the status of a universal as a means to hide the particularity of that segment’s point of 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 nationalist American archaeology and the dominant American imperialist anthropological archaeology. 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 consensus and nationalist history of the United States. But another outcome of the 1960s is the critical tradition (Patterson, 1995, pp. 133–139) in historical archaeology, which seeks to contest aspects of the consensus vision, out of populist impulses that recognize the importance of common people, and out of more radical im-pulses that seek to unmask ideologies of race, class, and gender consensus, or that are dissatisfied with stories of national technological progress that ignore global impoverishment. As if being caught between consensus and critical traditions of history were not enough, historical archaeology also was born in the 1960s’ enthu-siasm for the New Archaeology, Trigger’s imperialist American archaeology that trivializes concern with either version of a “local” history. No wonder it is difficult for historical archaeologists to match aspirations with achievements.

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

P1: FPY


22 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 that leads to the revaluation of the “local” history of the North American past.

In other words, American anthropological archaeology increasingly finds itself caught in what has been historical archaeology’s dilemma, that of trying to understand local history with perspectives that tend to trivialize such an endeavor (Patterson, 1990, 1995; Ramenofsky, 1991; Trigger, 1989, 1991). Anthropological archaeologists have increasingly turned attention to the issue of history (such as at the 1997 Chacmool Conference on “The Entangled Past : : : Integrating History and Archaeology”). The problem, in part, is making structuralist models of human society take on a nonteleological diachronic dimension. Some approaches seek the parallels between biological and cultural evolution (e.g., Dunnell, 1980, 1982, 1989; Schiffer, 1996). Others have advocated the perspectives of Braudel and the Annales school (e.g., Hodder, 1987; Knapp, 1992; Smith, 1992). And others approach history within the broad parameters set by Marx’s (1984, p. 97) notion that “men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past” (see also Kohl, 1987; Marquardt, 1992; McGuire, 1992b; McGuire and Saitta, 1996; Patterson, 1995; Saitta, 1989; Spriggs, 1984; Trigger, 1991).

Feinman has been working on aspects of an archaeological history that bridges between the idiosyncretism of the post-Processual archaeology and the universal-ism of Processual archaeology (1994, 1997a,b). These differences often are con-structed as the difference between science and history. However, he argues that science and history are not necessarily diametrically opposite endeavors. Con-ceived as an historical science, archaeology can take its place alongside other historical sciences, such as evolutionary biology (Feinman, 1994, pp. 18–25). In this, the goal is to “wind our way through particulars and specific sequences, while not losing sight of general, comparative, and theoretical questions concerning cul-tural differences, similarities, and change” (Feinman, 1994, p. 19). Doing this involves, among other tasks, writing particular histories for specific places, times, and people while maintaining an interest in systemic processes, making use of any relevant data without privileging texts over objects (or vice versa), eschew-ing normative narratives by recognizing the ordered diversity of social life, and structuring arguments so that ideas and data confront and constrain one another (Feinman, 1997b).

These are sensible responses to the polemical debates of Processual and post-Processual archaeologists (see also Trigger, 1991). In addition, critical archaeology suggests 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 Native past. As noted above, the reemergence of the Native history of North America is due in part to the contest between archaeologists and some Native nations over the content and stewardship of this history (e.g., Deloria, 1992a,b; Wylie, 1992). McGuire (1992b) has ably chronicled this contest and detailed the role that archae-ology has played in conservative and liberal theories concerning Native North Americans (see also Patterson, 1995; Trigger, 1980, 1989). McGuire’s analysis makes clear that regardless of intention, the results of anthropological archaeol-ogy will be used within mainstream society as it continually comes to grip with the legacy of conquest. It also makes clear that with few exceptions, archaeology has gravitated to the liberal, noble savage position, a position with honor but, nonethe-less, a position caught in the dialectic of noble and ignoble savages characteristic of colonialist ideologies. A way out is to imagine a world of different social relations, of Native autonomy, of Native anticolonial nationalism. Regardless of what one thinks of McGuire’s challenge (and I find it worth our attention), any attempt to write, in theory or in particular, the history of Native North America will need to recognize explicitly that it is inextricably caught in discourses about colonialism and anticolonialism in the culture that is producing archaeology.

Trying to understand where archaeology fits within nationalist ideologies is familiar terrain for historical archaeology. Historical archaeologists have taken on the task of writing antitriumphalist histories that emphasize the role of social relations as well as individuals, the common people as well as the prominent, the struggles along class, color, and gender lines, and the emergent social and cultural diversity of a supposedly uniform nation-state. To say that it is familiar terrain is not to say that it has been solved. For instance, adding the anticolonialist 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 developing epistemologies, theories, and methods to engage this important area of research. A dynamic blending of the scientific abstraction of the New Archaeology with the historical concerns of archaeologists who recognize their engagement in their own culture would provide a salutary amalgamation in the Untied States and in other archaeology-producing cultures around the globe.

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

P1: FPY


24 Paynter

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks go to Marge Abel, Uzi Baram, Mark Bograd, Claire Carlson, Marta Carlson, Liz Chilton, Jim Delle, Jim Garman, Rick Gumaer, Susan Hautaniemi, Steve Himmer, Ed Hood, Ross Jamieson, David Lacy, Kerry Lynch, Patricia Mangan, Ruth Mathis, Paul Mullins, Nancy Muller, Juliana Nairouz, Mike Nassaney, Sacha Page, Richard Panchyk, Marlys Pearson, Rita Reinke, Mary Robison, Ellen Savulis, Marta Yolanda Quezada, and Dean Saitta. Thanks go, too, to Martin Wobst, Dena Dincauze, Art Keene, Alan Swedlund, Helan Enoch Page, Jackie Urla, Arturo Escobar, Warren Perry, Steve Mrozowski, Randy McGuire, and Tom Patterson. I especially benefited from Gary Feinman and Doug Price’s patience and sage advice.

REFERENCES CITED

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

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

Adams, W. H. (1990). Landscape archaeology, landscape history, and the American farmstead. His-torical Archaeology 24(4): 92–101.

Agorsah, E. K. (1993). Archaeology and resistance history in the Caribbean. African Archaeology Review 11: 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 for Caribbean 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 the Parroquia de Yaxcaba, 1775–1850Journal. of Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 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 Historical Examination 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 Archaeology 25(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 Archaeology 20: 38–46.

P1: FPY



Beaudry, M. C. (1988). Introduction. In Beaudry, M. C. (ed.), Documentary Archaeology in the New World, 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 of corporate ideology. Historical Archaeology 23(1): 18–32.

Beaudry, M. C. (1993). Public aesthetics versus personal experience: Worker health and well-being in 19th century Lowell, Massachusetts. Historical Archaeology 27(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 Pont Winterthur 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 Journal of the Society for Industrial Archaeology 14(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 culture as 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 Anthropology 37: 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 Anthropologist 92: 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, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 267–281.

Bradley, J. W. (1984). Historic and Archaeological Resources of the Connecticut Valley: A Framework for Preservation Decisions, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston.

Brewer, A. (1980). Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Brumfiel, E. M. (1992). Breaking and entering the ecosystem: Gender, class, and faction steal the show.American Anthropologist 94: 551–567.

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

Carskadden, J., and Gartley, R. (1990). A preliminary seriation of 19th century decorated porcelain marbles. Historical Archaeology 24(2): 55–69.

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

Chase-Dunn, C. (ed.) (1992). Special Number: Comparing World-Systems. Review 15(3). Claassen, C. (ed.) (1994). Women in Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Clark, A. (1990). Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology, B. T. Batsford,

North Pomfret, VT.Cleland, C. E. (1988). Questions of substance, questions that count. Historical Archaeology 22(1):

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

Introduc-tion. Historical Archaeology 27(1): 3.Clements, J. M. (1993). The cultural creation of the feminine gender: An example from 19th century

military households at Fort Independence, Boston. Historical Archaeology 27(4): 39–64.

P1: FPY


26 Paynter

Cole, J. W. (1977). Anthropology comes part-way home: Community studies in Europe. Annual Review of Anthropology 6: 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, 1800–1850Historical. Archaeology 29(3).Deagan, K. (1982). Avenues of inquiry in historical archaeology. In Schiffer, M. (ed.), Advances in

Method and Theory, Vol. 5, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 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 Eastern North America, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 281–318.

Deagan, K. (1988). Neither history nor prehistory: The questions that count in historical archaeology.Historical Archaeology 22(1): 7–12.

Deagan, K., and Cruxent, J. M. (1993). From contact to criollo: The archaeology of Spanish colonization in Hispaniola. In Bray, W. (ed.), The Meeting of Two Worlds, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 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 Virginia Press, Charlottesville (in press).

Deetz, J. F. (1967). Invitation to Archaeology, Natural History Press, Garden City, NY.Deetz, J. F. (1968). Late man in North America. In Meggers, B. J. (ed.), Anthropological Archaeology in

the Americas, Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, DC, pp. 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 United States, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 219–233.

Deetz, J. F. (1988b). History and archaeological theory: Walter Taylor revisited. American Antiquity 53: 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.), Invisible America: 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 Mountain Coffee 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 Blue Mountains, Plenum Press, New York.

Deloria, V., Jr. (1992a). Indians, archaeologists, and the future. American Antiquity 57: 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, University of 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 of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Driscoll, S. T. (1992). Discourse on the frontiers of history: Material culture and social reproduction in early Scotland. Historical Archaeology 26(3): 12–25.

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

Dunnell, R. C. (1982). Science, social science, and common sense: The agonizing dilemma of modern archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38: 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 Archaeology 24(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 Franciscan missions 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 Mexican Republican Periods. Historical Archaeology 26.

Faulkner, A. (1986). Maintenance and fabrication at Fort Pantagoet, 1635–1654: Products of an Acadian armorer’s workshop. Historical Archaeology 20(1): 63–94.

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

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

Feinman, G. M. (1997a). Thoughts on new approaches to combining the archaeological and historical records. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 367–377.

Feinman, G. M. (1997b). Discussant’s comments. Presented at the Symposium on the Edge of History in the Desert West, 1997 Chacmool Conference on The Entangled Past : : : Integrating History and Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Ferguson, L. (1992). Uncommon Ground, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Flannery, K. V. (ed.) (1976). The Early Mesoamerican Village, Academic Press, New York.Franzen, J. G. (1992). Northern Michigan logging camps: Material culture and worker adaptation on

the industrial frontier. Historical Archaeology 26(2): 74–98.Friedman, J. (1992). General historical and culturally specific properties of global systems. Review

15: 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 Bulletin 7: 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-ology 28(3): 74–93.

Garrison, E. G. (1996). Archaeogeophysical and geochemical studies at George Washington Carver National Monument, Diamond, Missouri. Historical Archaeology 30(2): 22–40.

Gates, W. C., and Ormerod, D. E. (1982). The East Liverpool pottery district: Identification of manu-facturers and marks. Historical Archaeology 16: 1–358.

Geismar, J. H., and Janowitz, M. F. (eds.) (1993). Health, Sanitation, and Foodways in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 27.

P1: FPY


28 Paynter

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

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

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

Greenwood, R. S. (1991). Historical archaeology in California. Historical Archaeology 25(3): 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-pology 22: 177–200.

Handler, J. S. (1997). An African-type healer/diviner and his grave goods: A burial from a plantation slave cemetery in Barbados, West Indies. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 1(2): 91–130.

Handsman, R. G. (1983). Historical archaeology and capitalism, subscriptions and separations: The production of individualism. North American Archaeologist 4(1): 63–79.

Handsman, R. G. (1987). Material things and social relations: Toward an archaeology of “anti-structures.” Conference on New England Archaeology Newsletter 16(2): 9–19.

Handsman, R. G., and Harrington, F. (1994). A place for archaeology, an archaeology of place. Con-ference on New England Archaeology Newsletter 13: 1–8.

Handsman, R. G., and Leone, M. P. (1989). Living history and critical archaeology in the reconstruction of the past. In Pinsky, V., and Wylie, A. (eds.), Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology: Essays in the Philosophy, History and Socio-politics of Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 117–135.

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

Handsman, R. G., and Silberman, N. A. (1991). John DeForest and US: Critical perspectives on the archaeological alienation of Palestinian and Algonkian Indian histories. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Richmond, VA.

Hardesty, D. L. (1985). Evolution on the industrial frontier. In Green, S. W., and Perlman, S. M. (eds.),The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 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 Underwater Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 25(3): 3–6.

Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Harley, J. B. (1989). Deconstructing the map. Catographica 26(2): 1–20.Harley, J. B. (1992). Rereading the maps of the Columbian encounter. Annals of the American Asso-

ciation of Geographers 82: 522–536.Harrington, F. (1989a). The archaeological use of landscape treatment in social, economic, and ideo-

logical analyses. Historical Archaeology 23(1): 1.Harrington, F. (1989b). The emergent elite in early 18th century Portsmouth society: The

archaeology of the Joseph Sherburne houselot. Historical Archaeology 23(1): 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 Archaeology 24(4): 60–69.Honerkamp, N. (1988). Questions that count in historical archaeology. Historical Archaeology

22(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 Archaeology 27(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 of Benin. World Archaeology 28: 351–369.

Kelly, K. G. (1997b). Using historically informed archaeology: 17th and 18th century Hueda/European interaction on the Coast of Benin. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 353–366.

Kelso, G. K. (1994). Palynology in historical rural-landscape studies: Great Meadows, Pennsylvania.American Antiquity 59: 359–372.

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

Kelso, G. K., and Beaudry, M. C. (1990). Pollen analysis and urban land use: The environs of Scottow’s Dock in 17th, 18th, and early 19th century Boston. Historical Archaeology 24(1): 61–81.

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

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

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

Kenmotsu, N. (1990). Gunflints: A study. Historical Archaeology 24(2): 92–124.Kepecs, S. (1997). Native Yucatan and Spanish influence: The archaeology and history of Chikinchel.

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 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 Ancient World, 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 Anthropology 27: 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 Theory 4: 287–306.Kus, S. (1997). Archaeologist as anthropologist: Much ado about something after all? Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 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 Akuma 32: 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 in Annapolis, 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 in the Eastern United States, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 235–261.

Leone, M. P. (1988b). The relationship between archaeological data and the documentary record: 18th century gardens in Annapolis, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 22(1): 29–35.

Leone, M. P. (1995). A historical archaeology of capitalism. American Anthropologist 97: 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 in the Eastern United States, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Leone, M. P., and Preucel, R. W. (1992). Archaeology in a democratic society: A critical theory perspective. In Wandsnider, L. (ed.), Quandaries and Quests: Visions of 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, Henry Holt, New York.

Leone, M. P., Potter, P. B., Jr., and Shackel, P. A. (1987). Toward a critical archaeology. Current Anthropology 28: 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 and historical archaeology. American Antiquity 60: 99–217.

P1: FPY



Lister, F. C., and Lister, R. H. (1987). Andalusian Ceramics in Spain and New Spain: A Cultural Register from the 3rd Century B.C. to 1700, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Little, B. (1992). Text-aided archaeology. In Little, B. (ed.), Text-Aided Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 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 Theory 1: 5–40.Little, B. J., and Shackel, P. A. (1992). Introduction. Historical Archaeology 26(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 and Theory, Vol. 4, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 101–140.

Marshall, Y., and Maas, A. (1997). Dashing dishes. World Archaeology 28: 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 United States, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 435–480.

McGuire, R. H. (1991). Building power in the cultural landscape of Broome County, New York, 1880 to 1940. In McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.), The Archaeology of Inequality, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 102–124.

McGuire, R. H. (1992a). Archaeology and the first Americans. American Anthropologist 94: 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 Antiquity 61: 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-ology 11: 1–40.

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

Miller, N. F. (1989). What mean these seeds: A comparative approach to archaeological seed analysis.Historical Archaeology 23(2): 50–59.

Mintz, S. (1977). The so-called world system: Local initiative and Local response. Dialectical Anthro-pology 2: 253–270.

Monks, G. G. (1992). Architectural symbolism and non-verbal communication at Upper Fort Garry.Historical Archaeology 26(2): 37–57.

Morgen, S. (1997). Constitution of knowledge-producing communities. Anthropology Newsletter 38(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 an urban space. Historical Archaeology 30(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 University Press, New York, pp. 184–191.

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

Mrozowski, S. A. (1993). The dialectics of historical archaeology in a post-processual world. Historical Archaeology 27(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 of American 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 Lowell Boarding House Park Site. In Beaudry, M. C., and Mrozowski, S. A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Investigations of the Boott Mills, Lowell, Massachusetts, Vol. 1. Life at the Boarding Houses, North Atlantic Region, National Park Service, Boston, MA, pp. 139–151.

Mullins, P. R. (1996). The Contradictions of Consumption: An Archaeology of African America and Consumer Culture, 1850–1930, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Mullins, P. R. (1999). Race and Affluence: An Archaeology of African America and Consumer Culture , Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.

Nassaney, M. S., and Abel, M. R. (1993). The political and social contexts of cutlery production in the Connecticut Valley. Dialectical Anthropology 18: 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 slave plantations. Historical Archaeology 26(3): 95–104.

Orser, C. E., Jr. (1994). Toward a global historical archaeology: An example from Brazil. Historical Archaeology 28(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 Anthropology 12: 105–124.Patterson, T. C. (1990). Some theoretical tensions within and between the processual and

postprocessual archaeologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 9: 189–200.Patterson, T. C. (1991). Early colonial encounters and identities in the Caribbean: A review of some

recent works and their implications. Dialectical Anthropology 16(1): 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 Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 407–433.

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

Paynter, R. (1992). W. E. B. Du Bois and the material world of African-Americans in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. Critique of Anthropology 12: 277–291.

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

P1: FPY



Pearson, M. P. (1997). Close encounters of the worst kind: Malagasy resistance and colonial disasters in Southern Madagascar. World Archaeology 28: 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 New York, New York.

Perry, W. (1998). Dimensions of power in Swaziland research: Coercion, reflexivity and resistance.Transforming Anthropology 7(1): 2–14.

Potter, P. B. (1994). Public Archaeology in Annapolis: A Critical Approach to History in Maryland’s Ancient City, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Praetzellis, A., and Praetzellis, M. (1992). Faces and facades: Victorian ideology in early Sacramento. In Yentsch, A. E., and Beaudry, M. C. (eds.), The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 75–99.

Praetzellis, A., Praetzellis, M., and Brown, M. R. (1987). Artifacts as symbols of identity: An example from Sacramento’s gold rush era Chinese community. In Staski, E. (ed.), Living in Cities: Current Research in Urban Archaeology, Special Publication, No. 5, Society for Historical Archaeology, Tucson, AZ, pp. 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 University Press, 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 culture in 19th century Nevada. In Carter, T., and Herman, B. L. (eds.), Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, 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: A biological nexus in historical archaeology. The MASCA Journal 4(1): 31–36.

Reitz, E. J. (1987). Vertebrate fauna and socioeconomic status. In Spencer-Wood, S. (ed.), Consumer Choice 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 16th Century Spanish Florida, Special Publication Series, No. 3, Society for Historical Archaeology, Tucson, AZ.

Rice, P. M., and Smith, G. C. (1988). The Spanish colonial wineries of Moquegua, Peru. Historical Archaeology 23: 41–49.

Rice, P., and Van Beck, S. L. (1993). The Spanish colonial kiln tradition of Moquegua, Peru. Historical Archaeology 27(4): 65–81.

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

Rothschild, N. A., and Balkwill, D. (1993). The meaning of change in urban faunal deposits. Historical Archaeology 27(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. In Arnoldi, M. J., Geary, C. M., and Hardin, K. L. (eds.), African Material Culture, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 51–72.

P1: FPY


34 Paynter

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

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

Rubertone, P. E. (1989b). Landscape as artifact: Comments on “The archaeological use of landscape treatment in social, economic and ideological analysis.” Historical Archaeology 23(1): 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 Archaeology 26(3): 26–44.

Savulis, E. (1992). Alternative visions and landscapes: Archaeology of the Shaker social order and built environment. In Little, B. (ed.), Text-Aided Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 195– 203.

Schaedel, R. P. (1992). The archaeology of the Spanish colonial experience in South America. Antiquity 66: 217–242.

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

American Antiquity 61: 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, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 119–147.

Schmidt, P. R., and Childs, S. T. (1995). Ancient African iron production. American Scientist 83: 524–533.

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

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

Schrire, C. (1991). The historical archaeology of the impact of colonialism in 17th century South Africa. In Falk, L. (ed.), Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 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 of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Schuyler, R. L. (1970). Historical and historic sites, archeology as anthropology: Basic definitions and relationships. Historical Archaeology 4: 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 Papers 10: 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 Archaeology 22(1): 36–42.Schuyler, R. L. (1991). Historical archaeology in the American West: The view from Philadelphia.

Historical Archaeology 25(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 American Industrial Era, Plenum, New York.

Shackel, P. A., and Little, B. J. (1992). Post-processual approaches to meanings and uses of material culture in historical archaeology. Historical Archaeology 26(3): 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 the Modern Middle East, Anchor, New York.

Smith, M. E. (1992). Rhythms of change in postclassic central Mexico: Archaeology, ethnohistory, and the Braudelian model. In Knapp, A. B. (ed.), Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 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 Archaeology 22(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 Archaeology 24(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 Antiquity 57: 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 of Archaeology 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, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, pp. 1–58.

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

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

Thomas, D. H. (ed.) (1991). Columbian Consequences. Volume Three: The Spanish Borderland in Pan-American Perspective, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Thomas, N. (1991). Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific , Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Thomas-Emeagwali, G. (1989). Class formation in precolonial Nigeria: The case of eastern and western Nigeria and the middle belt. In Miller, D., Rowlands, M., and Tilley, C. (eds.), Domination and Resistance, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 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 Antiquity 45:

662–676.

P1: FPY


36 Paynter

Trigger, B. G. (1984). Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man 19: 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 Anthropologist 93: 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 Design 2(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 and History in Non-Western Settings, School for American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 47– 67.

Wall, D. di Z. (1991). Sacred dinners and secular teas: Constructing domesticity in mid-19th century New York. Historical Archaeology 25(4): 69–81.

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

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

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

Watson, P. J., and Fotiadis, M. (1990). The razor’s edge: Symbolic-structuralist archaeology and the expansion of archaeological inference. American Antiquity 92: 613–629.

Webster, J. (1997). Necessary comparisons: A post-colonial approach to religious syncretism in the Roman provinces. World Archaeology 28: 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., and Wylie, 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 Archaeology 28: 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 Archaeology 27(4): 1–19.

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

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

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

paynter (2000)

Documents

anthropological archaeology

western hemispherefind

style file version

historical archaeology

landscape epistemology

paynter local population

transport of enslaved

university of massachusetts