The Anthropology in American Historical Archaeology

CHARLES E. ORSER JR. Department of Sociology and Anthropology Illinois State University Normal, IL 61790

Since its infancy, American historical archaeology has maintained a relationship, albeit often a tenuous one, with its anthropological parentage. Given both the history of the field and its practitioners' often-tortured efforts to define their inten- tions, goals, and perspectives, it is not surprising, perhaps, that many anthropologists may not recognize the important contributions historical archaeology can make to the anthropological project. A multifaceted and wide-ranging examination of the post-Columbian world gives historical archaeology a special ability to investigate modern history and to pro- vide insights into the historical circumstances of today's world, [historical archaeology, post-Columbian archaeology, history of American archaeology]

he development of prehistoric archaeology as an not require similar justification because it did not exist dur- anthropological pursuit has been detailed in several ing the formative years of American anthropology. In fact, Timportant histories of the discipline, and its place historical archaeology in the United States was not a fully within anthropology is no longer seriously debated (e.g., recognized member of the archaeological family until the Patterson 1995; Stiebing 1993; Trigger 1989; Willey and late 1960s. Even at this time, however, the precise relation- Sabloff 1974). In the United States, many researchers asso- ship between historical archaeology and anthropology was ciated with the Bureau of American Ethnology had pressed still somewhat unclear. the cause of archaeology beginning in the last decades of the nineteenth century. A Brief History of Historical Archaeology As an explicit, although widely debated, historical per- Historical archaeology has a somewhat ambiguous spective began to dominate anthropological practice in the place within the history of American archaeology (see early twentieth century (Voget 1975:322-323), individual Paynter 2000a, 2000b), and for most of its formative years, anthropologists engaged in considerable and protracted archaeologists—even those practicing historical archaeol- discussions on the proper use of history in anthropology ogy—were unsure of precisely where their field fit, not (Harris 1968:275-277). The exact role of archaeology in only within anthropology but even within archaeology it- this debate was not always clear, at least partly because an- self. As archaeologists initially trained as prehistorians thropologically trained archaeologists themselves had yet sought to define the anthropological mission of historical to explicate the historical nature of their own pursuits. archaeology—and to justify the field's existence even to What they did understand, however, was that when they and their archaeological colleagues—many of them felt like lit- their fellow anthropologists used the term archaeology, tle more than "a junior varsity" (Little 1994:30), who were they were referring to prehistory. Thus, for example, when often openly ridiculed for their interest in "the unrespect- Kroeber (1948:4, 631) defined archaeology as "the science able in American archaeology" (Fontana 1968) and for us- of what is old," he voiced the commonly held perception ing what some referred to as "an expensive way of finding that the subject matter of archaeology is literally prehis- out what we know already" (Bradley 1987:293). tory, "history before written documents." Within this intel- The problems faced by America's earliest historical ar- lectual framework, anthropologists could imagine using chaeologists were twofold. In the first place, historical ar- archaeology to project the human story into the most inac- chaeology bore structural similarities to some Old World cessible corridors of time by providing material documen- archaeology in its use of textual information and in the in- tation for the ancient human condition. Even with this un- vestigation of sites associated with men and women from derstanding firmly pronounced, anthropologists using literate cultures. Even at its inception, then, historical ar- prehistoric, archaeological information often felt com- chaeology shared the core of a research methodology with pelled to defend its usage to their fellow social scientists other, well-established archaeologists who routinely com- (e.g., Wissler 1927:888-890). Historical archaeology did bined archaeological and "nonarchaeological" materials

(Andren 1998; Hogarth 1899). The duo-disciplinary meth- chaeology (Setzler 1943), and historic sites archaeology odology had an intellectual pedigree that stretched back at (Fontana 1965; Mattes 1960; also see Pilling 1967). least to the early nineteenth century and was associated While American historical archaeologists could find with some of the world's most famous archaeologists some measure of methodological affinity between them- (Flinders Petrie, Evans, Schliemann) and some of the most selves and many Old World archaeologists, they had no re- spectacular and world-renowned ancient sites (Naukratis, course to sites that could be promoted as "meaningful" in Knossos, Troy) (but cf. Cotter 1994:15). That America's the same way as Pompeii, Herculaneum, or Nineveh. Put historical archaeologists would work in another place and another way, historical archaeologists realized, perhaps with a more recent time was not overly troubling because subconsciously, that to bring their field the notice it de- the methodology on the whole was sound. American his- served, they would need a "heroic age" that would mimic torical archaeologists, therefore, could reasonably assert that of other "high civilization" archaeologies (Stiebing their link, at least methodologically, to some of the world's 1993:23). Like these other "historical" archaeologists, most high-profile archaeology. Accordingly, American American archaeologists could use the heroic age to build historical archaeologists could expect to find their intellec- the intellectual foundation of their field and to create its ra- tual niche in refining the ways in which historical materials tionale. could be combined with or compared against archaeologi- Where would historical archaeologists find this heroic cal materials. age in the United States? Though one could easily argue When aligned with an Old World archaeology focused that the most heroic men and women of the past had been on literate "civilizations," even if remotely, the important the hundreds of thousands of laborers who had struggled to theoretical debates within historical archaeology would build the nation, America's archaeologists, as members of necessarily revolve around how much historical research an intellectual elite, were drawn to the homes and proper- was necessary, required, or even tolerable for field studies ties of the nation's historic, almost mythic, elites (Orser and whether a greater reliance on texts over artifacts meant and Fagan 1995:25-29). that the archaeologist was actually performing as a histo- Happily for American historical archaeologists, the rian (e.g., Finley 1971). Anthropology's precise role in all United States government interceded with the passage of this was unclear, and the question of whether historical ar- the Historic Sites Act of 1935. The framers of this act ex- chaeology was history or anthropology would bedevil his- plicitly linked "historic and archaeological sites" and "historical archaeology for years and cause many historical ar- toric or prehistoric sites" and mandated the examination of chaeologists trained as anthropologists—and personally "sites, buildings, and objects" that could be deemed to "possess exceptional value as commemorating or illustrat- committed to the discipline—to question their relationship ing the history of the United States" (King et al. 1977:202). to prehistoric archaeology (Deagan 1988; Orser 1996: Historic sites were thus legislatively correlated with pre- 10-11). The resultant "crisis of identity" (Cleland and Fit- historic sites, and each place was given equal legal weight. ting 1968; Walker 1970), and questions over the role of As a result, the act not only provided employment for pio- "history" in their research, meant that many historical ar- neering U.S. historical archaeologists, it also created a way chaeologists no longer felt totally secure in their self-iden- for them to construct a "heroic age" around famous sites in tification as anthropologists. For example, pioneering his- American history. Though much of the research initially torical archaeologist John Cotter (1967:15) could not conducted under the 1935 act was purely architectural in decide whether to refer to a fellow historical archaeologist design and scope (Harrington 1994:6), it nonetheless pro- as an "anthropologist-turned historical sites archaeologist vided a significant entry point for historical archaeology or [as a] historian-Americanist-turned archaeologist." One into American archaeology. problem, of course, was that Old World archaeology fo- At the same time that the federal government was in- cused on "civilization"—arguably historical archaeology's volved in promoting sites and properties judged to be sig- closest intellectual cousin—had never been conceived as nificant within American history, capitalist entrepreneurs an anthropological pursuit, even though one branch of it, were also employing their own brand of historical archae- classical archaeology, had played a prominent role in the ology, what Harrington (1952:341) has referred to as "res- earliest years of American archaeology (Dyson toration archaeology." In Dearborn, Michigan, Henry Ford 1989:127-128) as well as archaeology elsewhere (e.g., Fu- used a primitive historical archaeology to aid in construct- nari 1997). In accordance with the confusion that accom- ing his Greenfield Village, an idyllic town meant to portray panied Cotter's disciplinary terminology, what American an America his automobiles were helping to destroy (Up- archaeologists today know as "historical archaeol- ward 1979), and in Williamsburg, Virginia, John D. ogy"—the archaeology of the post-Columbian era—was Rockefeller Jr. was helping to fund excavations that would then known by several other names, including historic site guide the reconstruction and renovation of one of America's archaeology (Harrington 1952,1994), historic archaeology premier colonial towns (Yetter 1988). These elites used (Harrington 1952; Setzler 1943; Walker 1967), colonial ar- historical archaeology to create memories of the nation—and ORSER / ANTHROPOLOGY IN AMERICAN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 623

themselves—that would last as long as the sites themselves committed to building an anthropologically based histori- (Patterson 1995:59-60; Schuyler 1976; also see Shackel cal archaeology. As proof, Fairbanks constructed a consci- 2000). entious anthropological foundation under both plantation The historical archaeologists of this time generally made archaeology and the archaeology of colonial Spanish no attempt to promote an anthropological connection to America in the Southeast (Fairbanks 1983, 1984). Fair- this primarily architectural work, even though Harrington banks' early plantation research, for instance, situated him (1955), the excavator of Jamestown, had a paper published squarely in the middle of the anthropological debate be- in American Anthropologist. Harrington proposed in the tween Frazier (1964) and Herskovits (1958) over the per- essay that historical archaeology's greatest contribution sistence of African cultural characteristics in the New was to the study of History, and that the future relationship World. Fairbanks made a lasting case for the tenacity of of historical archaeology to anthropology, and even to so- culture—even in the face of the barbarity of the Middle cial science in general, was debatable. Looking back on his Passage—in his search for material "Africanisms" at ante- career more than twenty years later, he did not believe the bellum plantation sites (Orser 1994:34-35). Since Fair- situation had improved much, and he reiterated his opinion banks's initial research on the nature of violently trans- that little progress had been made in formulating an anthro- planted African cultures in the Americas, historical pological historical archaeology (Harrington 1994:14). archaeologists have moved the examination of slavery and The confusion and controversy expressed during histori- African American culture steadily into such firmly anthro- cal archaeology's earliest years indicated that America's pological topics as acculturation (e.g., Wheaton and Gar- historical archaeologists had major problems when it came row 1985), creolization (e.g., Dawdy 2000; Ferguson to relating to their fellow anthropologists, even though 1992), race (e.g., Mullins 1999; Orser 1998), the social use most of them had been trained as prehistorians (see South of space (e.g., Delle 1998, 2000), and magic and religion 1994). Without being encumbered by the onus of textual (e.g., Leone and Fry 1999; Orser 1994; Wilkie 1997). "history," America's prehistorians discovered that they could find their anthropological niche in the codification of The Further Anthropologization of large-scale classification schemes and the concomitant Historical Archaeology construction of large-scale regional chronologies (Lyman While diverse anthropologists argued for a greater union et al. 1997; McKern 1939; Willey and Phillips 1958). Just of anthropology and history—and thereby implicitly made as Engels (1972:72) had realized that Morgan's research a case for the anthropological relevance of historical ar- could help to reconstruct the "prehistoric basis of our writ- chaeology (e.g., Evans-Pritchard 1962; Mead 1951)—it ten history," so, too, did prehistorians discover their an- was actually the development of the New Archaeology in thropological relevance. The problem was that a full-scale the 1960s that gave historical archaeology its firmest an- commitment to the creation of prehistoric cultural chro- thropological standing. Binford (1968, 1972) formulated nologies within the anthropological sphere left no rele- processual archaeology partly by grounding it in Taylor's vance for historical archaeology. As archaeology was be- (1948:41) idea that anthropological research could be tem- ing cast at the midpoint of the twentieth century, the porally unbounded, and that it could include "18th century purview of the prehistorian was literally construed as the England, Blackfoot Indians, or an industrial community in study of prehistory, the time before the presence of written Indiana"—all, by the way, legitimate subjects for historical language. With time demarcated in this manner, historians archaeology. Within the emergent Taylor/Binford frame- would study "history." The historical archaeologists who work, the parameters of the history/prehistory divide be- investigated sites and properties covered under the aus- came irrelevant as culture process took precedence over pices of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 were thus actually temporal affiliation. Binford's open-minded perspective performing as historians. Historical archaeologists digging was undoubtedly both theoretical and personal because he into archival collections uncovered written records that had obtained direct experience with historical archaeology had the same intellectual weight as the artifacts they dis- as a graduate student at Fort Michilimackinac, Michigan covered from beneath the earth. When the history of twen- (Maxwell and Binford 1961; also see Binford 1977). Bin- tieth-century American archaeology was divided into two ford's "revolutionary" efforts to create a nomothetic ar- broad categories—the descriptive-historic period and the chaeology were eagerly adopted in historical archaeology, comparative-historic period (Willey 1968:40-53)—his- largely because the apparent temporal restrictions had been torical archaeology simply had no anthropological role. removed from the practice of anthropological archaeology. America's historical archaeologists, however, were The historical archaeologist's role as historian could be deeply concerned about their inability to capture a place downplayed in favor of a newly justifiable role as anthro- within anthropology, their disciplinary training ground. pologist. Once again, however, the United States govern- For example, Charles Fairbanks (1994:204-205), who had ment had a timely role to play in forcing the practical ac- studied with Redfield and Radcliffe-Brown, was especially ceptance of historical archaeology. With the implementation 624 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 103, No. 3 • SEPTEMBER 2001

of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 F. W. Maitland's advice seriously that "an archaeology CFR Part 60 in 1976, government officials agreed that sites that is not history is somewhat less than nothing" (Hazelt- and properties over fifty years old were eligible to be listed ine et al. 1936:242). Significantly, the most vocal oppo- on the National Register of Historic Places (Hardesty and nents to an anthropological historical archaeology had Little 2000:43-44; King et al. 1977:223). As of 1976, then, been trained in Great Britain, where "archaeology, whether historical archaeologists—examining sites occupied as re- prehistoric or not, has always been regarded as an aspect of cently as 1926—found their research mandated by federal history" (Walker 1967:29). Even today, an anthropologi- legislation designed to defend, protect, and investigate his- cally rooted historical archaeology has been slow to de- toric-period archaeological sites that could be judged to be velop in Europe, even though the situation is in the process "significant" within the legislative guidelines. of changing (see, e.g., Frazer 1999; Orser 2000). Even before the federal mandate, however, some historical archaeologists had actively promoted the use of Is Historical Archaeology Unique? overt anthropological perspectives in the field. For example, James Deetz (1965, 1968a) was an early advocate of From our vantage point at the beginning of the twenty- anthropological historical archaeology through his pio- first century, we can say without qualification that histori- neering research on Ankara residence rules. Though some cal archaeology is now a recognized and generally ac- consider this work to fall within the often-murky purview cepted kind of anthropological archaeology. We thus may of "protohistory" (e.g., Willey 1968:52), Deetz (1968b, well imagine that historical archaeologists have exhausted 1988, 1996) became one of America's premier historical the early epistemological crises that swirled around the archaeologists and a persistent proponent of an overt an- meanings of history and the role of archaeology in terms of thropological historical archaeology. Stanley South these many meanings. We may also suppose that the pre- (1977), another influential proponent of anthropological cise relationship between historical and prehistoric archae- historical archaeology, worked toward the construction of ology is no longer contested and that a consensus of place an explicitly scientific historical archaeology rooted in an exists among most anthropologically trained archaeolo- unambiguous cultural evolutionism (South 1955). South gists. After all, historical archaeology—in one form or an- leaned heavily on the works of White and Malinowski in other—has been conducted in the United States since the creating his eclectic brand of nomothetic historical archae- initial decades of the twentieth century. Based on this his- ology (Orser 1989:28-33), and his approach forever dem- tory, we would be justified in supposing that the most basic onstrated the close connections between historical archae- controversies of the field have all been resolved and that ology and anthropology. historical archaeologists have moved on to more substan- South's formulation was immensely important to the tive theoretical matters. The controversies of today are in- maturation of historical archaeology because he made a deed more complexly formulated than in the past, but it strong case for the inclusion of the field into mainstream continues to be somewhat true that the emergence of his- anthropological archaeology. To make the transition wa- torical archaeology "as a legitimate subfield in the con- tertight, however, South proposed that, except for its "data sciousness of most American archaeologists is relatively base," historical archaeology was "not a different kind of recent" (Deagan 1982:151). The often-contentious nature archaeology from any other" (1977:2). In other words, his- of historical archaeology has not entirely disappeared, and torical archaeologists were simply archaeologists who a clear-cut agreement as to the mission and goals of the studied the relatively recent, as opposed to the ancient, field is still somewhat elusive. In fact, the controversies of past. His position harkened back to Taylor's view that "the the late 1960s (see South 1968) are still with us, resurfac- archaeologist, as archaeologist, is really nothing but a tech- ing in a new guise as recently as the mid-1990s. nician" (1948:43). But, where Taylor (1948:44) had pro- In 1994, Mark Leone and Parker Potter (1994) provided posed that archaeology was neither history nor anthropol- a synopsis of an advanced seminar they had organized the ogy—but an autonomous discipline in its own right— previous year at the School of American Research (see South (1977:12) situated historical archaeology firmly Leone and Potter 1999). The central theme of the seminar within anthropology and effectively removed it from any was based on a growing realization among many historical real association with classical archaeology. Without ques- archaeologists that they were uniquely positioned to inves- tion, his unmistakable insistence on the creation of an an- tigate the material and cultural manifestations of historical thropologically informed historical archaeology was de- capitalism as it had been expressed around the world since signed to counter the voices of other prominent historical the early 1500s (Leone and Potter 1999; also see Johnson archaeologists who not only denied anthropology any role 1996; Leone 1995a; Little 1994; Orser 1987, 1988a, in the field whatsoever (e.g., Noel Hume 1972:12—13; 1988b, 1996; Paynter 1988, 2000a, 2000b). One point of Walker 1967) but also openly ridiculed the nomothetic both the symposium and Leone and Potter's short report goals of the New Archaeology (Walker 1974). These anti- was to promote the idea that the study of capitalism can anthropology historical archaeologists took English jurist serve to unite historical archaeologists in the common ORSER / ANTHROPOLOGY IN AMERICAN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 625 purpose of understanding the intricacies of the capitalist chaeology, it is simply situated within an everyday, capi- project, while at the same time providing a commonality talist system. for the investigation of the dimensions of capitalist resistance at localities across the globe, topics that have serious Some Current Faces of Historical Archaeology anthropological relevance (e.g., Bodley 1990; Friedman 1994; Patterson 1999; Robbins 1999). Leone and Potter The dispute over capitalism illustrates that historical ar- sought to define a role for today's historical archaeology chaeology is still not a conceptually unified field of in- within the critique of globalization and modernization. quiry. The more than thirty years that American historical archaeologists have been searching for a coherent perspec- Leone and Potter's statement, and the growing realiza- tive suggests that the field never will be completely settled. tion among some historical archaeologists that their field Few historical archaeologists would demand any sort of was unique within archaeology, was not truly new, as simi- theoretical conformity—as this would seriously stifle intel- lar sentiments had been expressed, albeit in different ways, lectual growth—but many may find it disconcerting that during the debates of the formative years (e.g., South the purpose of their field of inquiry is still contested. Oth- 1968). Nonetheless, their summary reopened and reinvig- ers, however, may find the diversity stimulating and orated the discussion over the perspectives and goals of thought-provoking. As the situation currently stands at the historical archaeology and demonstrated that the most ba- beginning of the twenty-first century, it seems that histori- sic, definitional issues of the field had never been satisfac- cal archaeologists conceptualize their field in several ways. torily resolved (Becker 1995; Hackbarth 1995; Leone The most prevalent of these perspectives include: histori- 1995b; Moore 1995a, 1995b; Wesler 1996). cal archaeology as a critique of modern history, including The opinions that Leone and Potter evoked about the capitalism, capitalist expressions, and resistance; historical "proper" study of historical archaeology were decidedly archaeology as a trans-temporal study of broad cultural more sophisticated than those of the 1960s. The point of trends and processes; and historical archaeology as a gen- contention was not the disciplinary heritage and academic erally particularistic (some would say "historical") study of placement of historical archaeology (as either "anthropo- specific places. In every case, today's most accomplished logical" or "historical"—historical archaeologists now historical archaeology loudly proclaims its anthropological readily accepted the fuzzy boundary between the two dis- heritage. ciplines) but whether historical archaeologists were correct Archaeologists who tend to see historical archaeology to express the uniqueness of their field as the study of the as a critical pursuit generally believe that it can have a dis- material manifestations of capitalism. Historical archae- tinct impact on our understanding of the historical roots of ologists who were opposed to the idea generally argued today's world, including capitalism. This understanding is that foregrounding this primarily economic system created linked to a critically informed anthropology that seeks to artificial boundaries that were both disciplinarily and tem- be active and engaged in the problems of today's world porally based. In other words, a focus on capitalism would (Harrison 1997; Hymes 1974). While some archaeologists tend to separate historical archaeologists both from prehis- may simply choose to characterize this research as "politi- tory (creating an artificial temporal disjunction) and from cal," and thereby summarily dismiss it (e.g., Washburn prehistorians (creating an artificial disciplinary demarca- 1987), historical archaeology constructed in this manner tion) (e.g., Funari et al. 1999; Lightfoot 1995; Wesler seeks to make the past relevant to the present. The target 1998). Prehistorians will discern that this debate is struc- audience is not only other scholars but also descendant turally analogous to the question of whether world systems communities and nonarchaeologists (e.g., McDavid and Babson 1997; Potter 1994). This kind of historical archae- theory should be restricted to post-A.D. 1500 history ology—variously termed "modern-world archaeology" (Wallerstein 1974, 1979, 1980) or whether the charac- (Orser 1999:280-282) and "critical archaeology" (Leone teristics of world systems can be identified far earlier et al. 1987)—shares with many anthropologists an interest (Frank 1993; Frank and Gills 1993). Prehistorians have ar- in modernization and dependency, globalization, mass gued both positions at length and have not been able to de- consumerism, colonialism, and cultural survival and resis- rive any sort of final resolution (e.g., Algaze 1993; Blanton tance. and Feinman 1984; Blanton et al. 1992; Champion 1989; Historical archaeologists who tend to reject the perspec- Chase-Dunn and Hall 1991; Edens 1992; Hall and Chase- tive of a critical historical archaeology, but yet who readily Dunn 1983, 1994; King and Freer 1995; Kohl 1987; Pailes accept the premise of anthropological historical archaeol- and Whitecotton 1979; Peregrine 1995; Peregrine and ogy, often seek to use archaeology to document the trans- Feinman 1996; Rowlands et al. 1987; Sanderson 1995; temporal features and characteristics of complex societies. Schortman and Urban 1987, 1992; Upham 1986). No easy Using a mostly comparative framework to investigate such solution similarly exists for the question of whether histori- topics as urbanism (Mrozowski 1988) and the extent and cal archaeology is about capitalism, or whether, like all ar- nature of large-scale trading networks prior to A.D. 1500 626 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 103, No. 3 • SEPTEMBER 2001

(Funari 1999), these historical archaeologists tend to give the field. Instead, the best we can hope for is to present an precedence to cross-cultural similarities between complex indication of current efforts in historical archaeology with- societies and downplay the temporal differences between out any goal of total inclusivity. The five articles that fol- them. In many cases, these archaeological studies of broad low are intended to demonstrate some of the research that cultural trends over vast periods of time share with critical is now being conducted by anthropological historical ar- archaeology an overt interest in dominated and intention- chaeologists in the United States. ally ignored peoples who have had their history appropri- In Bonnie McEwan's article, we confront a familiar ated by others (e.g., Mangut 1998; Parker Pearson et al. theme in historical archaeology. In fact, the examination of 1999). colonization and cultural transformation was one of the Another face of today's historical archaeology involves earliest topics pursued by historical archaeologists, many the study of particular places for specific purposes, such as of whom first found their anthropological relevance in the for the completion of cultural resource management re- study of fur trade posts and other frontier sites where men ports. American historical archaeology is heavily commit- and women from vastly different cultures met and inter- ted to contract research, and as of 1998, only 29 percent of acted. Whereas much of the investigation in the past would historical archaeologists were engaged in some amount of have revolved around the material identification of accul- teaching (DeCorse 2000:14).1 Based on the survey, it is turation and focused on issues of how acculturation could reasonable to state that most American historical archaeol- be "measured" in artifact frequencies, McEwan shows us ogy is conducted in an applied environment. Much of the the true complexities of culture contact. Her lens is through research completed within the parameters of sponsored re- religion, one area of research in historical archaeology that search often appears to have little direct relevance to an an- is quickly becoming prominent. She argues that intercultu- thropologically informed archaeology because the re- ral contact incorporates more than just political changes searchers are often contractually engaged to demonstrate and shows how Spanish missionaries in Florida zealously the historical significance of a building, site, or property pressed the cause of Christianity on the indigenous Native within the established federal guidelines, or are simply em- Americans, in a process that was repeated throughout the powered to conduct surveys of tightly delimited areas. globe. Relying on a solid staple of much archaeological re- Even with such constraints, however, cultural resource search, McEwan examines mortuary patterns at several managers often do complete sophisticated examples of an- mission sites in an effort to gain insights into religious con- thropological research, using as part of their explanatory version and the interplay of social variables in those con- frameworks such concepts as urbanization, ethnic bound- versions. Using one particular strength of modern-day his- ary maintenance, and social networks (e.g., Mcllroy and torical archaeology, McEwan links past and present by Praetzellis 1997; Praetzellis et al. 1997; Ziesing 1998). noting how the Talimali Band of Apalachee are still prac- One of the exciting elements of today's anthropologi- ticing Roman Catholics, information that aptly demon- cally informed historical archaeology is that these three strates the power of religious conservativism overtime. "groups"—those who study capitalism, those interested in Paul Shackel takes a completely different tack than trans-temporal processes, and those engaged in applied re- McEwan and examines how history is constructed and search—are loose at best. They are neither mutually exclu- how memory is produced. Issues such as these have sel- sive nor do they constitute all possible emphases of re- dom been overtly explored in American historical archae- search in historical archaeology. Other commentators may ology, even though much of the field's history is associated dispute their very existence, choosing to argue that the specifically with the production of memory at sites consid- field is differently organized or not organized at all. Rather ered to have historic, national importance. Confronting than being troubling, these differences of opinion merely such complicated issues as the creation of exclusionary reflect the vitality of the field and the richness of interpre- history, the role of patriotism in the production of memory, tations that are possible within it. and the application of symbols at historic landscapes and monuments, Shackel illustrates the tacit power historical Examples in Historical Archaeology archaeologists—and in fact all archaeologists—have at their discretion when they construct images of the past. The diverse character of today's historical archaeology These images become frozen in time when they constitute means that the field is contentious and alive. Historical ar- the basis for physical reconstruction, a topic of special sig- chaeologists espouse a variety of theoretical viewpoints nificance for historical archaeology. Shackel's effort is and conduct research on a huge number of topics, and indi- also instructive because historical archaeologists often find vidual historical archaeologists see themselves as engaged themselves attempting to justify that they are "doing" his- in various segments of the larger anthropological project. torical archaeology when they are not excavating. Many Given the breadth of research now being conducted archaeologists tend to equate archaeology strictly with ex- throughout the world, no single volume, no matter how cavation, and an individual who is not a "dirt archaeolo- large, could ever hope to portray the true variation within gist" is often not considered to be an archaeologist at all. ORSER / ANTHROPOLOGY IN AMERICAN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 627

Historical archaeologists are sensitive to this criticism be- antebellum:postbellum, upland:coastal, sugarxotton, cot- cause their vast resource base includes so much that is ton:rice, and Old South frontier South. Such broad com- above ground. Most historical archaeologists adopt an ex- parisons can be said conceptually to mirror the culture tremely liberal view of what constitutes "real" archaeol- historian's creation of prehistoric, regional cultural chro- ogy, and Shackel's study of public memory certainly nologies in that they seek to present totalizing structures of qualifies. interpretation across and within huge regions. Scott argues, Adrian and Mary Praetzellis take us in yet another direc- on the contrary, that it is even problematic to compare the tion with their study in California. As proponents of faunal data from her site to other plantations in the same "contextual archaeology"—an innovative approach that state. Part of the difficulty is undoubtedly practical in that incorporates creative storytelling—they view historical ar- the data base, though growing larger every year, is still chaeology as a humanistic field that has its greatest chance relatively small. Even so, the possible uniqueness of every of interpretive success in the ability of archaeologists to plantation—including the spatial landscapes, power rela- "play" with the data. The goal of this approach is to pro- tions, social structures, and community organizations—is a vide an animated, interesting picture of how real men and topic that plantation archaeologists will likely confront in women once lived in the world. Rather than focusing on future studies. whole cultures or even on social groups as homogeneous The final article, by Amy Young, Michael Tuma, and wholes, they seek to personalize the people they study and Cliff Jenkins, findsu s on another plantation site, this one in in the process strive to understand how these men and Mississippi. Showing the richness of interpretive possibili- women used their material culture for their own, complex ties, Young et al. take a different tack than Scott, even ends. Here, Praetzellis and Praetzellis investigate the gen- though they also use faunal information. They focus on the tility of Victorian culture. Subjects of the British Empire notion of purposeful risk management by African Ameri- expressed gentility as normative behavior across the globe, can slaves, enacted within a social environment that em- and Praetzellis and Praetzellis individualize the enactment phasizes family and community. Young et al. illustrate of this behavior at four unique places. In the process they how slaves used hunting strategies as a means of regaining confront an important issue in today's historical archaeol- some degree of control within a socially repressive setting ogy concerning the scale of analysis. Some historical ar- in which they were not intended to have control. The issue chaeologists prefer large-scale analyses, while others see of slave control has been a contentious issue in historical their greatest abilities to excel, as do Praetzellis and archaeology, because to downplay the slaves' power to Praetzellis, at a far smaller scale. Still others promote a create culture fashions them into mere automatons, multiscalar analysis that tacks back and forth between whereas to give them substantial power lessens the repres- many scales. The verdict is still out among historical ar- sive, inhuman nature of human bondage. The examination chaeologists as to what scale is most appropriate for par- and interpretation of the control slaves had over their own ticular analyses and whether one particular scale is actually lives, no matter on what level it was achieved, demon- best for historical archaeology. One of the strengths of to- strates just one area in which historical archaeology can day's diverse historical archaeology is that no one needs to have a major impact on anthropological thought. The con- decide on only one scale of inquiry. Praetzellis and cept of risk management provides one intriguing avenue of Praetzellis forcefully demonstrate this fact in their power- inquiry, to be sure. ful, personalized interpretation. In the articles that follow, we see a focus on both large In Elizabeth Scott's contribution we encounter a promi- and small issues and five examples of interpretation and nent feature of much historical archaeology, the analysis of analysis. We move around in time and place and obtain in- faunal remains. Focusing on a sugar plantation in Louisi- sights into various aspects of the American past. Some of ana, Scott investigates the correlation between the cross- the information presented was gathered within a contract cutting social variables of plantation power relations, eth- archaeology environment, while other information was nicity, and class affiliation, and argues, through an analysis generated by pure research curiosity. Some of the archae- of the excavated faunal remains, that the social variables ologists are interested in capitalism, and others are more enacted on the plantation worked in complex ways to af- concerned with investigating the basic issues of the human fect diet. Scott calls into question some of today's stereo- condition. But throughout, we see the diversity of approach, the vitality of interpretation, and the exciting po- types about the association of certain foods with specific tential of an anthropologically informed historical archae- ethnic groups and proposes that broad generalizations can- ology. not be made from her data to all plantations. Historical archaeologists have wondered since the inception of plantation archaeology whether and on what scale plantation Note comparisons could be made, and many have devised Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Robert Sussman cleaver dichotomies for investigation of the slave regime: for his interest in historical archaeology and the individual 628 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 103, No. 3 • SEPTEMBER 2001

authors for their willingness to contribute to this collection. Cleland, C. E., and J. E. Fitting Their hard work and dedication to the profession is obvious. I 1968 The Crisis of Identity: Theory in Historic Sites Archae- also wish to acknowledge Robert Paynter for his useful com- ology. Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 2(2): ments and assistance, and I would like to thank the anony- 124-138. mous reviewers for helping me to refine and rethink portions Cotter, J. L. 1967 Progress on a Chapbook and Bibliography for Historical of my argument. Sites Archaeology. Conference on Historical Site Archaeol- 1. Even the figure of 29 percent is too high because the re- ogy Papers 1:15-18. spondent category in the survey included "full-time college/ 1994 Beginnings. In Pioneers in Historical Archaeology: university jobs, joint-appointments, adjunct teaching at col- Breaking New Ground. S. South, ed. Pp. 15-25. New York: leges and universities, and primary and secondary school em- Plenum. ployees" (DeCorse 2000:14). Of the 804 Society for Historical Dawdy, S.L.,ed. Archaeology members who responded to the survey, fully 71 2000 Creolization. Historical Archaeology 34(3): 1 -133. percent stated that they had completed a cultural resource Deagan, K. A. management report within the past five years (1993-98). 1982 Avenues of Inquiry in Historical Archaeology. In Ad- vances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 5. M. B. References Cited Schiffer, ed. Pp. 151-177. New York: Academic Press. 1988 Neither History nor Prehistory. The Questions that Algaze, G. Count in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 1993 The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion 22(1):7-12. of Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Chicago: University of DeCorse, C. R. Chicago Press. 2000 Results of the 1998 SHA Membership Survey. Society Andren, A. for Historical Archaeology Newsletter 33( 1): 13-14. 1998 Between Artifacts and Texts: Historical Archaeology in Deetz, J. Global Perspective. New York: Plenum. 1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Ankara Ceramics. Becker, M. J. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 1995 Letter to the Editor. Bulletin of the Society for American 1968a The Inference of Residence and Descent Rules from Archaeology 13(2):6. Archaeological Data. In New Perspectives in Archaeology. S. Binford, L. R. R. Binford and L. R. Binford, eds. Pp. 41^8. Chicago: Ald- 1968 Some Comments on Historical versus Processual Ar- ine. chaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24:267- 1968b Late Man in North America: Archaeology of European 275. Americans. In Anthropological Archaeology in the Ameri- 1972 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis cas. B. J. Meggers, ed. Pp. 121-130. Washington, DC: An- in Historical Archaeology: A Step Toward the Development thropological Society of Washington. of Archaeological Science. The Conference on Historic Site 1988 American Historical Archaeology: Methods and Re- Archaeology Papers 6:117-126. sults. Science 239:362-367. 1977 Historical Archaeology: Is It Historical or Archaeologi- 1996 In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early cal? In Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Mate- American Life. Revised edition. New York: Doubleday. rial Things. L. Ferguson, ed. Pp. 13-22. Tucson: Society for Delle, J. A. Historical Archaeology. 1998 An Archaeology of Social Space: Analyzing Coffee Blanton, R. E., and G. Feinman Plantations in Jamaica's Blue Mountains. New York: Ple- num. 1984 The Mesoamerican World System. American Anthro- 2000 Gender, Power, and Space: Negotiating Social Relations pologist 86:673-682. under Slavery on Coffee Plantations in Jamaica, 1790-1834. Blanton, R., S. Kowalewski, and G. Feinman In Lines and Divide: Historical Archaeology of Race, Class, 1992 The Mesoamerican World-System. Review 15:419- and Gender. J. A. Delle, S. A. Mrozowski, and R. Paynter, eds. 426. Pp. 168-201. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Bodley, J. H. Dyson, S. L. 1990 Victims of Progress. 3rd edition. Mountain View, CA: 1989 The Role of Ideology and Institutions in Shaping Classi- Mayfield. cal Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Bradley, R. In Tracing Archaeology's Past: The Historiography of Ar- 1987 Comment on 'Toward a Critical Archaeology" by M. P. chaeology. A. L. Christenson, ed. Pp. 127-135. Carbondale: Leone, P. B. Potter Jr., and P. A. Shackel. Current Anthropol- Southern Illinois University Press. ogy 28:293. Edens, C. Champion, T. C, ed. 1992 Dynamics of Trade in the Ancient Mesopotamian 1989 Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archae- "World System." American Anthropologist 94:118-139. ology. London: Unwin Hyman. Engels, F. Chase-Dunn, C, and T. D. Hall, eds. 1972 The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, 1991 Core-Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds. Boul- in the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan. E. B. Lea- der: Westview Press. cock, ed. New York: International. ORSER / ANTHROPOLOGY IN AMERICAN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 629

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. Hardesty, D. L., and B. J. Little 1962 Social Anthropology and Other Essays. New York: Free 2000 Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists Press. and Historians. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Fairbanks, C. H. Harrington, J. C. 1983 Historical Archaeology Implications of Recent Investi- 1952 Historic Site Archaeology in the United States. In Ar- gations. Geoscience and Man 23:17-26. chaeology of Eastern United States. J. B. Griffin, ed. Pp. 1984 The Plantation Archaeology of the Southeastern Coast. 335-344. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Historical Archaeology 18(1): 1-14. 1955 Archaeology as an Auxiliary Science to American His- 1994 Path to Prelude: "What Is Past Is Prelude; Study the tory. American Anthropologist 57:1121-1130. Past." In Pioneers in Historical Archaeology: Breaking New 1994 From Architraves to Artifacts: A Metamorphosis. In Ground. S. South, ed. Pp. 197-217. New York: Plenum. Pioneers in Historical Archaeology: Breaking New Ground. S. South, ed. Pp. 1-14. New York: Plenum. Ferguson, L. G. Harris, M. 1992 Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early African 1968 The Rise of Anthropology Theory: A History of Theo- America, 1650-1800. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institu- ries of Culture. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. tion Press. Harrison, F. V., ed. Finley, M. I. 1997 Decolonizing Anthropology: Moving Further Toward 1971 Archaeology and History. Daedalus 100(1): 168-186. an Anthropology for Liberation. 2nd edition. Washington, Fontana, B. L. DC: American Anthropological Association. 1965 On the Meaning of Historic Sites Archaeology. Ameri- Hazeltine, H. D., G. Lapsley, and P. H. Winfield, eds. can Antiquity 31:61-65. 1936 Maitland: Selected Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge 1968 Bottles, Buckets, and Horseshoes: The Unrespectable in University Press. American Archaeology. Keystone Folklore Quarterly (fall): Herskovits, M. J. 171-184. 1958 The Myth of the Negro Past. Boston: Beacon. Frank, A. G. Hogarth, D. G. 1993 Bronze Age World System Cycles. Current Anthropol- 1899 Prefatory. In Authority and Archaeology, Sacred and ogy 34:383-429. Profane: Essays on the Relation of Monuments to Biblical and Frank, A. G., and B. K. Gills, eds. Classical Literature. D. G. Hogarth, ed. Pp. v-xiv. London: 1993 The World-System: Five Hundred Years or Five Thou- John Murray. sand? London: Routledge. Hymes, D. Frazer, B. 1974 Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Vintage. Johnson, M. 1999 Reconceptualizing Resistance in the Historical Archae- 1996 An Archaeology of Capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell. ology of the British Isles: An Editorial. International Journal King, A., and J. A. Freer of Historical Archaeology 3:1-10. 1995 The Mississippian Southeast: A World-Systems Per- Frazier, E. F. spective. In Native American Interactions: Multiscalar 1964 The Negro Church in America. New York: Schocken. Analyses and Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands. M. S. Friedman, J. Nassaney and K. E. Sassaman, eds. Pp. 266-288. Knoxville: 1994 Cultural Identity and Global Process. London: Sage. University of Tennessee Press. Funari, P. P. A. King, T. F., P. P. Hickman, and G. Berg 1997 European Archaeology and Two Brazilian Offspring: 1977 Anthropology in Historic Preservation: Caring for Cul- Classical Archaeology and Art History. Journal of European ture's Clutter. New York: Academic Press. Archaeology 5:137-148. Kohl, P. L. 1999 Historical Archaeology from a World Perspective. In 1987 The Use and Abuse of World Systems Theory: The Case Historical Archaeology: Back from the Edge. P. P. A. Funari, of the Pristine West Asian State. In Advances in Archaeologi- M. Hall, and S. Jones, eds. Pp. 37-66. London: Routledge. cal Method and Theory, vol. 11. M. B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 1-35. Funari, P. P. A., S. Jones, and M. Hall San Diego: Academic Press. 1999 Introduction: Archaeology in History. In Historical Ar- Kroeber, A. L. chaeology: Back from the Edge. P. P. A. Funari, M. Hall, and 1948 Anthropology. New York: Harcourt Brace. S. Jones, eds. Pp. 1-20. London: Routledge. Leone, M. P. Hackbarth, M. 1995a A Historical Archaeology of Capitalism. American Anthropologist 97:251-268. 1995 Letter to the Editor. Bulletin of the Society for American 1995b Letter to the Editor. Bulletin of the Society for Ameri- Archaeology 13(2):6-7. can Archaeology 13(5):3. Hall, T. D., and C. Chase-Dunn Leone, M. P., and G.-M. Fry 1983 The World-Systems Perspective and Archaeology: For- 1999 Conjuring in the Big House Kitchen: An Interpretation ward into the Past. Journal of Archaeological Research of African American Belief Systems Based on the Uses of Ar- 1:121-143. chaeology and Folklore Sources. Journal of American Folk- 1994 Forward in the Past: World-Systems before 1500. Socio- lore 112.372-403. logical Forum 9:295-306. 630 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 103, No. 3 • SEPTEMBER 2001

Leone, M. P., and P. B. Potter Jr. Mullins, P. R. 1994 Historical Archaeology of Capitalism. Bulletin of the 1999 Race and Affluence: An Archaeology of African Amer- Society for American Archaeology 12(4): 14—15. ica and Consumer Culture. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Leone, M. P., and P. B. Potter Jr., eds. Plenum. 1999 Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism. New York: Noel Hume, I. Klu wer Academic/Plenum. 1972 Historical Archaeology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Leone, M. P., P. B. Potter Jr., and P. A. Shackel Orser, C. E., Jr. 1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology 1987 Plantation Status and Consumer Choice: A Materialist 28:283-302. Framework for Historical Archaeology. In Consumer Choice Lightfoot, K. G. in Historical Archaeology. S. M. Spencer-Wood, ed. Pp. 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship 121-137. New York: Plenum. 1988a The Material Basis of the Postbellum Tenant Planta- between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American tion: Historical Archaeology in the South Carolina Piedmont. Antiquity 60:199-217. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Little, B.J. 1988b Toward a Theory of Power for Historical Archaeology: 1994 People with History: An Update on Historical Archaeol- Plantations and Space. In The Recovery of Meaning: Histori- ogy in the United States. Journal of Archaeological Method cal Archaeology in the Eastern United States. M. P. Leone and and Theory 1:5-40. P. B. Potter Jr., eds. Pp. 313-343. Washington, DC: Smith- Lyman, R. L., M. J. O'Brien, and R. C. Dunnell sonian Institution Press. 1997 The Rise and Fall of Culture History. New York: Ple- 1989 On Plantations and Patterns. Historical Archaeology num. Mangut, J. 1994 The Archaeology of African-American Slave Religion 1998 An Archaeological Investigation of Ron Abandoned in the Antebellum South. Cambridge Archaeological Journal Settlements on the Jos Plateau: A Case of Historical Archaeol- 4:33-45. ogy. In Historical Archaeology in Nigeria. K. W. Wesler, ed. 1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. New Pp. 199_241. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. York: Plenum. Mattes, M. J. 1998 The Challenge of Race to American Historical Archae- 1960 Historic Sites Archaeology on the Upper Missouri. In ology. American Anthropologist 100:661-668. River Basin Survey Papers, Number 15. Smithsonian Institu- 1999 Negotiating Our "Familiar Pasts." In The Familiar Past? tion Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 176. F. H. H. Archaeologies of Later Historical Britain. S. Tarlow and S. West, eds. Pp. 273-285. London: Routledge. Roberts, ed. Pp. 1-23. Washington, DC: Government Print- 2000 Why Is There No Archaeology in Irish Studies? Irish ing Office. Studies Review 8:157-165. Maxwell, M. S., and L. R. Binford Orser, C. E., Jr., and B. M. Fagan 1961 Excavation at Fort Michilimackinac, Mackinac City, 1995 Historical Archaeology. New York: HarperCollins. Michigan, 1959 Season. East Lansing: The Museum, Michi- Pailes, R. A., and J. W. Whitecotton gan State University. 1979 The Greater Southwest and the Mesoamerican "World" McDavid, C, and D. W. Babson, eds. System: An Explanatory Model of Frontier Relationships. In 1997 In the Realm of Politics: Prospects for Public Participa- The Frontier, vol. 2: Comparative Studies. W. W. Savage Jr. tion in African-American and Plantation Archaeology. His- andS. I. Thompson, eds. Pp. 105-121. Norman: University of torical Archaeology 31(3): 1-152. Oklahoma Press. Mcllroy, J., and M. Praetzellis, eds. Parker Pearson, M., K. Godden, R. Retsihisatse, J.-L. 1997 Vanished Community: 19th-century San Francisco Schwenninger, and H. Smith Neighborhoods, from Fourth Street to Mission Creek and Be- 1999 Lost Kingdoms: Oral Histories Travellers' Tales and Ar- yond. Rohnert Park, CA: Anthropological Studies Center, chaeology in Southern Madagascar. In Historical Archaeol- Sonoma State University. ogy: Back from the Edge. P. P. A. Funari, M. Hall, and S. McKern, W. C. Jones, eds. Pp. 233-254. London: Routledge. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Ar- Patterson, T. C. chaeological Culture Study. American Antiquity 4:301-313. 1995 Toward a Social History of Archaeology in the United Mead, M. States. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. 1951 Anthropologist and Historian: Their Common Prob- 1999 Change and Development in the Twentieth Century. lems. American Quarterly 3:3-13. Berg: Oxford. Moore, L. E. Paynter, R. 1995a Letter to the Editor. Bulletin of the Society for Ameri- 1988 Steps to an Archaeology of Capitalism: Material Culture can Archaeology 13(1):3. and Class Analysis. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States. M. P. Leone and P. 1995b Letter to the Editor. Bulletin of the Society for Ameri- B. Potter Jr., eds. Pp. 407-433. Washington, DC: Smithsonian can Archaeology 13(4):3—4 Institution Press. Mrozowski, S. A. 2000a Historical and Anthropological Archaeology: Forging 1988 Historical Archaeology as Anthropology. Historical Ar- Alliances. Journal of Archaeological Research 8:1-37. chaeology 22( 1): 18-24. ORSER / ANTHROPOLOGY IN AMERICAN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 631

2000b Historical Archaeology and the Post-Columbian South, S., ed. World of North America. Journal of Archaeological Research 1994 Pioneers in Historical Archaeology: Breaking New 8:169-217. Ground. New York: Plenum. Peregrine, P. N. Stiebing,W.H.,Jr. 1995 Networks of Power: The Mississippian World-System. 1993 Uncovering the Past: A History of Archaeology. New In Native American Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses and York: Oxford University Press. Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands. M. S. Nassaney and Taylor, W. W. K. E. Sassaman, eds. Pp. 245-265. Knoxville: University of 1948 A Study of Archaeology. Memoir 69. American Anthro- Tennessee Press. pologist 50:5-256. Peregrine, P. N., and G. M. Feinman, eds. Trigger, B.G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: 1996 Pre-Columbian World Systems. Madison: Prehistory Cambridge University Press. Press. Upham, S. Pilling, A. R. 1986 Imperialists, Isolationists, World Systems, and Political 1967 Beginnings. Historical Archaeology 1:1-22. Potter, P. B., Jr. Realities: Perspectives on Mesoamerican-Southwestern In- teraction. In Ripples in the Chicimec Sea: New Considera- 1994 Public Archaeology in Annapolis: A Critical Approach tions of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions. F. J. to History in Maryland's Ancient City. Washington, DC: Mathien and R. H. McGuire, eds. Pp. 205-219. Carbondale-. Smithsonian Institution Press. Southern Illinois University Press. Praetzellis, M., S. B. Stewart, and G. H. Ziesing, eds. Upward, G. C. 1997 The Los Vaqueros Watershed: A Working History. 1979 A Home for Our Heritage: The Building and Growth of Rohnert Park, CA: Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma Greenfield Village and Henry Ford Museum, 1929-1979. State University. Dearborn, MI: Henry Ford Museum Press. Robbins, R. H. Voget, F. W. 1999 Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Boston: 1975 A History of Ethnology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Allyn and Bacon. Winston. Rowlands, M., M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen, eds. Walker, I. C. 1987 Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge: 1967 Historic Archaeology: Methods and Principles. Histori- Cambridge University Press. cal Archaeology 1:23-34. Sanderson, S. K., ed. 1970 The Crisis of Identity: History and Anthropology. The 1995 Civilization and World-Systems: Two Approaches to Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 3:62-69. the Study of World-Historical Change. Walnut Creek, CA: 1974 Binford, Science, and History: The Probabilistic Vari- AltaMira Press. ability of Explicated Epistemology and Nomothetic Para- Schortman, E., and P. Urban digms in Historical Archaeology. The Conference on Historic 1987 Modeling Interregional Interaction in Prehistory. In Ad- Site Archaeology Papers 7:159-201. vances in Archaeological Method and Theory, volume 11. M. Wallerstein, I. B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 37-95. San Diego: Academic Press. 1974 The Modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and Schortman, E., and P. Urban, eds. the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth 1992 Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction. New Century. New York: Academic Press. York: Plenum. 1979 The Capitalist World-Economy. Cambridge: Cam- Schuyler, R. bridge University Press. 1976 Images of America: The Contribution of Historical Ar- 1980 The Modern World System II: Mercantilism and Con- chaeology to National Identity. Southwestern Lore 42(4): solidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750. 27-39. New York: Academic Press. Setzler, R. Washburn,W.E. 1943 Archaeological Explorations in the United States, 1987 A Critical View of Critical Archaeology. Current An- 1930-1942. Acta Americana 1:206-220. thropology 28:544-545. Shackel, P. A. Wesler, K. W. 2000 Archaeology and Created Memory: Public History in a 1996 Letter to the Editor. Bulletin of the Society for American National Park. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press. Archaeology 14(l):3-4. South, S. 1998 Historical Archaeology in West Africa. In Historical Ar- 1954 Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology. Southern Indian chaeology in Nigeria. K. W. Wesler, ed. Pp. 1-39. Trenton, Studies 7:10-32. NJ: Africa World Press. 1968 Historical Archaeology Forum on Theory and Method Wheaton, T. R., and P. H. Garrow in Historical Archaeology. The Conference on Historic Site 1985 Acculturation and the Archaeological Record in the Archaeology Papers 2(2): 1-188. Carolina Lowcountry. In The Archaeology of Slavery and 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. New Plantation Life. T. A. Singleton, ed. Pp. 239-259. Orlando: York: Academic Press. Academic Press. 632 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 103, No. 3 • SEPTEMBER 2001

Wilkie,L.A. Wissler, C. 1997 Secret and Sacred: Contextualizing the Artifacts of Afri- 1927 The Culture-Area Concept in Social Anthropology. can American Magic and Religion. Historical Archaeology American Journal of Sociology 32:881-891. 31(4):81-106. Yetter, G. H. Willey, G. R. 1988 Williamsburg Before and After: The Rebirth of Vir- 1968 One Hundred Years of American Archaeology. In One ginia's Colonial Capital. Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Wil- Hundred Years of Anthropology. J. O. Brew, ed. Pp. 29-53. liamsburg Foundation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ziesing, G., ed. Willey, G.R., and P. Phillips 1998 The San Francisco Central Freeway Replacement Pro- 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Chi- ject: Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan. cago: University of Chicago Press. Rohnert Park, CA: Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma Willey, G. R., and J. A. Sabloff State University. 1974 A History of American Archaeology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.