7
Historical Archaeology and Disciplinary
Ethnogenesis
Statistical Research, Inc., and University of Arizona
T he organizers of the 2000 symposium at which this
paper was originally presented asked whether we are
still able to say that archaeology is anthropology. They
argued that anthropology "needs" archaeology to con-
tinue as a healthy discipline, precisely because of
archaeology's approaches to "materiality and history."
Here I approach the topic from my perspective as a
historical archaeologist. Historical archaeology and an-
thropology, I contend, have the as-yet-unrealized poten-
tial for an extremely productive relationship. In a recent
work about the changing relationship between anthro-
pology and archaeology, Chris Gosden (1999:8) notes:
"There is very little common language to create commu-
nication between the two subjects, although things are
very different in the area of historical and colonial ar-
chaeology where themes of politics, power and material
culture allow considerable overlap between archaeology
and anthropology."
Definitional Issues
To explore this theme, some background on histori-
cal archaeology is essential. In a career brochure recently
published for an undergraduate audience by the Society
for Historical Archaeology, the field is defined as "the
study—through the use of material and written evi-
dence—of peoples and cultures that existed during the
period of recorded history." Just when recorded history
begins varies from place to place, of course. T. Cuyler
Young, in his 1987 Society for American Archaeology
Distinguished Lecture (Young 1988), equates the begin-
ning of history—that is, what a living society thinks about
the past and does with the past—with Herodotus in the
fifth century B.C. Most Americanist historical archaeolo-
gists focus their attention on sites dating after A.D. 1400,
which is a generally agreed-upon date for the beginnings
of the modern world economic system. The historical
archaeology of this time period is not limited in practice
Teresita Majewski
to the United States and Canada, however, and similar
work is also being done around the world, even though
it might be referred to as something else, such as post-
medieval archaeology or industrial archaeology. The key
feature of historical archaeology, which differentiates it
from prehistoric archaeology, is the use of documentary
evidence in conjunction with archaeological findings to
investigate topics relating to the human condition. Oral
history has also become an important part of the field-
work repertoire, particularly for sites dating to the first
half of the twentieth century.
Historical archaeology is a multicultural, pluralistic
endeavor, for even though it adds to our knowledge of
"mainstream" North American culture history, it also
provides information on groups underrepresented in the
historical record (Eric Wolf's [1982] "people without
history"), such as Native Americans, Asians, Africans,
women, and children (also see Little 1994). Historical
archaeologists focus on both terrestrial and underwater
archaeological sites and also investigate historic build-
ings and sites important to contemporary Native Ameri-
cans and other groups.
The definition from the SHA career brochure incor-
porates two of the three most prevalent ideas about the
nature of historical archaeology: that it is the study of a
time period and that it is a method (Orser 1996:23-24).
The current Americanist view of the field champions the
position that historical archaeology is the study of the
post-1492 modern world on a worldwide scale. This fo-
cus—which represents the third prevalent idea about the
nature of historical archaeology—emphasizes the study
of global colonialism, Eurocentrism, capitalism, and
modernity (Orser 1996:26-27).
For all practical purposes, the development of his-
torical archaeology in the United States began in the
1930s in response to the need to combine documentary
and material evidence to use in the restoration and inter-
pretation of sites important in early American history,
78
such as Jamestown, St. Augustine, and Williamsburg.
According to the "Guide to Higher Education in Histori-
cal and Underwater Archaeology, 2002-2003" (SHA
2002), the subject is taught at an estimated 50 colleges
and universities around the world, primarily in depart-
ments of anthropology but also in departments of archae-
ology and history. (The guide does not, however, claim
to present an exhaustive list of institutions where classes
in historical archaeology or post-medieval archaeology
are taught.) SHA, the primary North American organi-
zation for historical archaeologists, has grown to over
2,000 members since its founding in 1967.
Building Linkages between Historical
Archaeology and Anthropology
Historical archaeology has a great deal to offer to
general anthropological knowledge. There are many sub-
jects of study for which it is particularly suited, includ-
ing gender, colonialism, ethnicity, capitalism and power
relations, consumer behavior, long-term cultural change,
and pluralism. Using the independent evidentiary sources
of the archaeological record, documents, and oral his-
tory, many subjects can be broached that archaeologists
working on prehistoric archaeological sites and material
culture can treat only through inference or analogy—or
not at all. A key methodological difference between tra-
ditionally practiced prehistoric archaeology and histori-
cal archaeology is the use of "historical method" by
practitioners of the latter. Historical method is defined
(after Wood 1990:82, citing Garraghan 1946:33) as a
"systematic body of principles for gathering, critically
examining, and presenting the source materials of his-
tory." These source materials traditionally include docu-
ments, but any source of data on the past may serve as a
document: archaeological records, photographs, maps,
and even the landscape.
There are many parallels between historical archae-
ology and ethnography. In historical archaeology, we
observe past and contemporary peoples by considering
their material culture, their own words, and the words
written about them. In ethnography, we participate in a
group's social setting and make observations about their
"culture" that vary in their objectivity and perspective.
Formerly, one traveled to exotic places to study groups
that were non-Westernized to some degree, but now
ethnography is frequently conducted closer to home. In
historical archaeology, we are approaching the "archae-
ology of us."
James Deetz presented one of two Distinguished
Lectures at the 1987 SAA meetings, and it was published
Teresita Majewski
in American Antiquity along with T. Cuyler Young's
paper in 1988. In it, he coins the term "archeography,"
or the "writing of contexts from the material culture of
past actuality" (Deetz 1988:18). He claims that as meth-
ods, both ethnography and archeography contribute to
ethnological theory but have no theory of their own.
Deetz links the notion of archeography with anthropol-
ogy in his conclusion that "[cjombining a view of cul-
ture as a mental construct...with an acknowledgment of
the role played by ethnography and archeography in eth-
nology, will provide us with both a richer data base, and
a means of dealing with it in anthropological terms. When
archeographers and ethnographers more clearly recog-
nize their shared goals we will witness an end to a kind
of intellectual apartheid that has characterized anthro-
pology for so long, and the field as a whole can only
benefit" (Deetz 1988:22).
In an article originally presented in the plenary ses-
sion at the 1987 SHA conference that treats many of the
same topics discussed by Deetz, Robert Schuyler (1988)
asks why historical archaeology is internally successful
but externally relatively unproductive. In a nutshell, he
felt (as of 1987) that historical archaeologists had suc-
ceeded in creating a distinctive, new area of research.
However, they had not fully joined with general schol-
arship via descriptive, interpretive contributions. To
move ahead, historical archaeologists needed to "use their
birthright as anthropologists" and begin to use the docu-
mentary record more effectively—to produce what he
called "historic ethnographies" (Schuyler 1988:38). Over
time, enough comparative "units" (equivalent to Deetz's
"contexts") would be available to allow for "historic eth-
nology" or "comparative studies" (Schuyler 1988:41).
These studies, in both Deetz's and Schuyler's schemes,
would be informed by anthropological theory. In a 1995
paper on culture contact studies published in American
Antiquity, Kent Lightfoot stresses the necessity of mak-
ing these cross-cultural, comparative analyses at a pan-
regional scale.
At essentially the same time Schuyler and Deetz were
writing about historical archaeology and ethnography,
cultural anthropologists John and Jean Comaroff were
writing Ethnography and the Historical Imagination
(1992), based on their ethnographic work in Africa. They
argue for "the continuing value of a historical anthro-
pology in which ethnography and culture remain
vital....In specifying what this anthropology may
entail...we shall suggest that the discipline is best dis-
tinguished by its method." They speak of a neomodernist
anthropology that keeps "close to the essential pulse of
anthropology while simultaneously straying into the ter-
Historical Archaeology and Disciplinary Ethnogenesis
ritory of social history and literary studies" (Comaroff
and Comaroff 1992:ix).
Methodological and Theoretical Challenges
to the Relationship
Schuyler (1988) also stresses the need for objectiv-
ity in all scientific research (both social and physical).
After giving some additional thought to the concept of
objectivity and its effects on research, I conclude that
one of the major problems experienced by practitioners
of anthropology in general and archaeology in particu-
lar is that the closer we get to studying ourselves, the
more schizophrenic we become about objectivity and the
overall relevance of our work. For example, most fellow
anthropologists have never fully appreciated the contribu-
tions of the University of Arizona's Garbage Project
(Rathje 1979), which has now been under way for more
than a quarter century; nor is everyone convinced that
when Michael Brian Schiffer studies radios (1991) or
electric cars (1994) he is studying an "appropriate" topic.
It may be that as social scientists we are nervous about
maintaining objectivity when studying ourselves. Alter-
natively, this reticence may relate to the notion espoused
by some that we already know enough about modern
material culture, so why bother studying it?
The point is, when we find ourselves in danger of
losing our objectivity, more, rather than less, source
analysis is the answer. One way historical archaeology
can enhance anthropology is to contribute to the reintro-
duction of rigorous methods for all source analysis. Con-
sider, for example, Marshall Sahlins's (1985) collection
of essays entitled Islands of History, which is his foray
into structural, historical anthropology. While his work
is a thought-provoking treatise on the complementary
nature of history and anthropology, methods are given
short shrift. Archaeology, as it provides "historical" in-
formation (time depth), would also have been a logical
addition to the praxis of historical anthropology.
Patrick Kirch and Marshall Sahlins's (1992) two-
volume work, Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in
the Kingdom of Hawaii, masterfully remedies the meth-
odological deficit of Sahlins's earlier work. The Anahulu
Project was designed as an effort to develop an anthro-
pology of history that represents a truly synthetic col-
laboration between anthropological subdisciplines (e.g.,
archaeology, ethnography, ethnohistory). The authors
found that only through the mutual investigation of ar-
chival and published texts, along with material remains,
was it possible to discover the larger history of the Sand-
wich Islands as reflected in the historical landscape of
79
the Anahulu Valley located in northwestern O'ahu (Kirch
and Sahlins 1992, 2:1). Kirch and Roger Green (2001)
further develop this vision of historical anthropology in
Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia: An Essay in Historical
Anthropology. In the spirit of interdisciplinary studies
championed by Kirch and Sahlins (1992), they draw upon
and integrate the approaches of archaeology, compara-
tive ethnography, and historical linguistics in building a
phylogenetic model for cultural diversification and ap-
ply a triangulation method to create a historical recon-
struction of Polynesian cultures.
Despite the possibilities that exist for developing a
fruitful relationship between historical archaeology and
anthropology (and only a few links have been drawn
here), at the beginning of the twenty-first century, his-
torical archaeologists continue to struggle with the ap-
plication of theory in their work (Cleland 1988, 2001;
Honerkamp 1988). Charles Orser (1996:2) characterizes
this situation as a crisis in historical archaeology and
notes that "historical archaeology will only mature as a
serious pursuit when its practitioners tackle the deep theo-
retical issues that accompany their interpretations of the
past." In suggesting a remedy for the crisis, he abandons
the term theory and speaks of a "research program"
(Orser 1996:17, after Gibbon 1989). A research program
is simply a framework for organizing the underlying prin-
ciples and assumptions of research. For Orser (1996:22),
the research program for historical archaeology should
be the temporally focused (from 1492 to the present) glo-
bal study of the historical processes (or "haunts," as he
refers to them) that underlie all historical archaeological
research: Eurocentrism, capitalism, global colonialism,
and modernity (also see Moore [2001] for additional dis-
cussion of this point). These are topics on which anthro-
pologists, particularly cultural anthropologists, have
spilled considerable ink.
The Practical Dilemma
If historical archaeology has so many logical links
to cultural anthropology, why is it nearly invisible in the
greater anthropological scheme of things? Here, I would
like to briefly mention just a few of the factors that are
currently limiting the potential of historical archaeology
to contribute to anthropological studies.
Historical archaeology is taught primarily in aca-
demic departments of anthropology, where history and
historical methods are not part of the curriculum. An-
thropologists are adept at reciting cultural facts about
particular groups but are more often than not woefully
ignorant of even the most basic historical facts neces-
80
sary for putting a postcontact archaeological site (or even
a protohistoric site for that matter) into context within a
regional or global system. Having students take courses
in departments of history has had uneven results, and
few anthropologists want to prepare and teach the kind
of contextual courses required to fill in the blanks.
Another limiting factor is the trend toward the "dis-
integration of holistic anthropology" and the "prolifera-
tion of narrowly defined, specialized subfields" (as noted
by Lightfoot 1995:212). As the years pass, there has been
increasing specialization in both prehistoric archaeology
and historical archaeology, which has resulted in fewer
people identifying themselves as anthropologists. What
are the chances of a new generation of scholars being
more anthropologically oriented? They are unfortunately
minimal, unless something is done about it. My current
graduate students at the University of Arizona, where I
teach as an associate research professor, rarely connect
their background in general anthropology to their cur-
rent interests. I doubt that this problem is specific to this
university. In a recent provocative article, Robert Borof-
sky (2002:472) notes: "The contradiction anthropol-
ogy lives with is its tendency toward specialization,
all the while aspiring to be an intellectually holistic
discipline." He goes on to say that, "[o]nce set in mo-
tion, specialization tends to build momentum all its
own." The most serious aspect of this anthropologi-
cal trend is that it is embedded in the broader trends
of our time and that all of the "specialized, fragmented
intellectual productions...rarely seem to collectively
add up to a broad coherent understanding of humans"
(Borofsky 2002:472).
Suggested Solutions
My use of the word ethnogenesis in the title of this
chapter is not simply an attempt to appear au courant.
Instead I use it to conceptualize the archaeology-anthro-
pology conundrum. Jonathan D. Hill (1996:1), in his in-
troduction to History, Power and Identity: Ethnogenesis
in the Americas, 1492-1992, notes that the process of
ethnogenesis "is not merely a label for the historical
emergence of culturally distinct peoples but a concept
for encompassing people's simultaneous cultural and
political struggles to create enduring identities in gen-
eral contexts of radical change and discontinuity." It is
obvious that many members of anthropology departments
are suffering from identity crises. Students are generally
not groomed to be "anthropologists"; rather, they tend
to identify most closely with the particular sub-
disciplinary camp in which they receive most of their
Teresita Majewski
training. For those of you who are archaeologists, when
is the last time you defined yourself as an anthropolo-
gist? (For those wishing to pursue this subject further,
Gosden [1999] discusses the mutual, complex, histori-
cal entanglements of anthropology and archaeology.)
I firmly believe that anthropology and historical ar-
chaeology are being affected by radical changes from
within and without. University curricula are in flux; more
and more emphasis is being placed on training under-
graduates rather than graduate students and on maintain-
ing certain levels of enrollment, even in graduate-level
classes. Few graduate students take coursework outside
of their departments. Why would a professor in your
own department suggest that you take a course in an-
other if it meant an increase in class enrollments for
that department and a decrease in yours? Even in the face
of administrative constraints, departments of history and
anthropology need to face the problem and devise prac-
tical solutions for interdisciplinary training and collabo-
ration. Students should be encouraged (or required) to
take classes in allied fields—to "cross train," so to speak.
This may require that anthropologists make most of the
overtures. Gregory Waselkov (2001:21) places some of
the blame for the less-than-productive nature of the his-
tory-historical archaeology relationship on historical
archaeologists. He contends that we often unnecessarily
privilege historical documentation at the expense of our
other data and notes: "Historians who might otherwise
be inclined to use our research find little of interest when
historical archaeologists ignore the independent nature
of their data and simply correlate material residues with
recorded, but otherwise unverified, actions." For what-
ever reasons, perhaps because of the disciplinary "inse-
curity" we feel as historical archaeologists, we downplay
the greatest strength of historical archaeology—"our
ability to provide archaeological data linked to histori-
cal information that is otherwise unattainable" (Waselkov
2001:21). While productive relationships between his-
torians and archaeologists are not all that common, they
do occur, and Peter Wood (1997) provides an interest-
ing account of how this journey can take place.
The job market for historical archaeologists has cer-
tainly changed. Over 30 years ago when the SHA was
founded, few people were doing historical archaeology
in the private sector. The results of a 1998 survey of the
entire SHA membership, which had roughly a 40-per-
cent return (DeCorse and DiSanto 1999), indicated that
historical archaeologists are working almost equally in
the government, teaching, and corporate sectors. After
these, almost one-fourth are self-employed, and 12 per-
cent work in museum settings. Of the respondents, al-
Historical Archaeology and Disciplinary Ethnogenesis
most 50 percent received their degrees in departments
of anthropology, while the remainder have degrees in
archaeology (28 percent), other (16 percent), and his-
tory (7 percent).
It is obvious from a perusal of the "Guide to Higher
Education in Historical and Underwater Archaeology,
2002-2003" (SHA 2002) that in America, anthropology
is still the place that aspiring historical archaeologists
will look for training in their field of choice. Apparently,
however, even though "applied" programs are being de-
veloped that provide more practical training for careers
outside of academia, students are not obtaining every-
thing they need. Both the SAA and SHA have been lob-
bying for curriculum reform to improve students' chances
of career success, but it is difficult to get the point across
when there are so many competing "factions" within
anthropology departments. It is also clear that training is
uneven in theoretical areas, where many students focus
on something so specialized that they might as well be
technicians rather than scholars. This is not the fault of
students, however, who simply want to ensure that they
are employable after years of graduate study.
To help students create "enduring identities," I sug-
gest that graduate programs in anthropology train stu-
dents to be anthropologists first, making sure that they
have the theoretical and practical training they need re-
gardless of their subfield of choice. Professors should
foster situations in which nascent anthropologists of all
topical bents interact regularly while they are students.
Intradepartmental student writing and discussion groups
are one option. Faculties are invited to change the
ahistorical and anti-material-culture focus of current
training in anthropological archaeology. Students today
have very little experience with either history or mate-
rial culture, and both are essential areas of training for
historical archaeologists. Without a grasp of the histori-
cal contexts surrounding the topic one is studying, it is
impossible to make meaningful historical archaeologi-
cal interpretations. Gosden (1999:152) notes that the
material dimensions of life form the nexus where archae-
ology and anthropology meet most closely. The materi-
ality of archaeology necessitates that archaeologists first
look to anthropology for theoretical links, rather than
history, because history tends to focus on events rather
than artifacts.
Anthropology is still the place for students to obtain
the broad theoretical background that allows archaeo-
logical work focusing on all time periods to be put into
context for interpretation. Professors should design new
courses or teach independent study courses that give stu-
dents the experience and skills they need to practice his-
81
torical archaeology within an anthropological framework.
Departments should require courses in anthropological
theory, and then faculty should teach students how to
use theory to structure their research.
Other suggestions include incorporating the concepts
of source analysis (external and internal criticism) into
as much course work as possible and ensuring that students
have a grounding in both prehistoric and historical archae-
ology. An excellent starting point for understanding the
detrimental impact of the intellectual and methodologi-
cal separation between prehistoric and historical archaeol-
ogy, particularly when studying the effects of long-term
cultural change, is Lightfoot's 1995 paper cited earlier.
He uses the example of investigations at a Euroamerican
fur trade post (Fort Ross), where archaeologists trained
as prehistorians studied the historical-period Native
American component and historical archaeologists stud-
ied the contemporary Euroamerican occupation. Com-
parative and integrative analyses of the site were almost
impossible because of the widely varying excavation meth-
ods and research foci used.
We should not force students into doing research
within the tight confines that conventional wisdom in
historical archaeology has defined. Over one-quarter of
the respondents to the 1998 SHA survey mentioned above
indicated that their period of interest was prior to A.D.
1400. Why can we and our students not practice anthro-
pologically oriented historical archaeology with archaeo-
logical and documentary information collected from
Pompeii, from a Maya site with inscriptions, or from an
Aztec site in central Mexico with many related archival
materials? Topics such as these are particularly relevant
to culture contact studies, which is one area that pertains
to history, prehistory, and ethnography alike. I am tak-
ing a risk by making this suggestion, because most of
my Americanist colleagues insist that a focus on the post-
1492 modern world is necessary to give historical ar-
chaeology the singular research agenda it so desperately
needs to stay on course (e.g., Deagan 1988; Deetz 1977;
Orser 1996; Schuyler 1970).
Historical archaeologists inside and outside of the
academy can also do their part toward changing the low
disciplinary visibility of historical archaeology within
anthropology. Where are historical archaeologists pub-
lishing? For many years most historical archaeologists
preached to the choir by publishing articles primarily in
the SHA's fine journal Historical Archaeology. It is a
healthy sign that historical archaeologists are also pub-
lishing their findings in outlets with the potential for a
broader readership, such as American Antiquity, Inter-
national Journal of Historical Archaeology, and Ameri-
82 Teresita Majewski

can Anthropologist. Several major publishers are also (1997), Mrozowski (1991), Rubertone (2000), and Yamin
supporting book series on historical archaeology. and Metheny (1996). Rubertone's work is of particular
1 believe that the leadership of the SHA, the flag- interest in that she illustrates the value of using a land-
ship organization for historical archaeology in the west- scape approach to understand historical-period Native
ern hemisphere, should expand their focus beyond American attitudes toward their histories and identities.
management of the organization (which, granted, is a She notes that research on landscapes has "led to pro-
daunting task) and attempt to impact the actual prac- foundly richer and more nuanced understandings of
tice of historical archaeology in a more forceful way. the role of place in Native people's lives. The insights
Some initiatives have already begun, but more is needed. gained about native landscapes as active and animated
Joint efforts with other societies, such as the American places steeped in names, memories, and routines have
Anthropological Association, the SAA, and various his- shed considerable light on why relationships to ances-
torical organizations, are also extremely important. tral homelands have remained important despite incur-
It is important to change the attitude of academic sions by non-Indians, dispossession, diasporas, and
provincialism that is rampant in anthropology depart- forced removals" (Rubertone 2000:436).
ments among both faculty and students. The prehistory Those who have grappled with the landscape ap-
versus historical archaeology division is perpetuated by proach would be the first to admit that it is a challenging
both sides. (See Moore [2001] for a particularly inter- theoretical perspective within which to work (e.g.,
esting discussion of this issue.) Archaeologists should Bischoff et al. 2000; Whittlesey 1998; Zedeiio 1997).
spend more time reinforcing their anthropological "roots" Would we expect anything else when we study human
than erecting boundaries based on their differing foci of behavior in all of its inherent complexity? Despite the
investigation. For me, the reason for being an anthro- challenges posed by its inherently interdisciplinary na-
pologist is to have the means to frame and contextual ize ture and its often liminal position vis-a-vis prehistoric
the information we gather. Although I was not schooled archaeology, historical archaeology offers us the oppor-
by postmodernists, I would be among the first to agree tunity to investigate complex topics such as landscapes,
that the postprocessualists have taught us a great deal colonialism, and modernity from a more holistic perspec-
about how we should approach our subjects from an an- tive within an anthropological framework.
thropological point of view, both in the past and in the
present. To do this effectively, however, requires a bal- A cknowledgments
ance of emic-etic perspectives, objective-subjective ap-
proaches, and processual-postprocessual thinking. This paper was originally presented in the sympo-
One topical area where this may be possible is in the sium "Archaeology Is Anthropology" at the 65th Annual
study of landscapes, where investigations from both emic Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, April
and etic perspectives are necessary. Anthropologists have 5-9, 2000, Philadelphia. I thank the Archeology Divi-
long been fascinated with the reactions of human beings sion of the AAA for sponsoring the symposium in which
to their surroundings. The physical traces of occupation this paper was originally presented and the organizers,
have fallen within the rubric of settlement pattern stud- Deborah Nichols, Rosemary Joyce, and Susan Gillespie,
ies. To make sense of settlement configurations requires for inviting me to participate.
more than simply the physical evidence viewed from both
synchronic and diachronic perspectives; information References
about individual or group decisions and perceptions of
the landscape is a critical component. This dual perspec- Beaudry, Mary C.
tive is very difficult to operational ize. 1996 Why Gardens? In Landscape Archaeology: Read-
Carole Crumley and William Marquardt's (1987) ing and Interpreting the A merican Historical Land-
classic edited volume on cultural landscapes, Regional scape. R. Yamin and K. B. Metheny, eds. Pp. 3-5.
Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Per- Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
spective, provided the impetus for prehistoric and his-
torical archaeologists alike to incorporate the concept of Bischoff, Matt C , Joseph A. Ezzo, Teresita Majewski,
landscape into their research program. A few of the his- Robert M. Wegener, and Stephanie M. Whittlesey
torical archaeologists who have explored the analytical 2000 Archaeological Research Design for the North-
and interpretive power of landscapes include Beaudry eastern Great Basin: Appendix P to the Hill Air
(1996), Kelso and Most (1990), Leone (1984), Lewis Force Base Cultural Resource Management
Historical Archaeology and Disciplinary Ethnogenesis 83

Plan. Technical Report 99-29. Tucson: Statistical Hill, Jonathan D.

Research, Inc.
Borofsky, Robert
2002 The Four Subfields: Anthropologists as
Mythmakers. American Anthropologist
104:463-480.
Cleland, Charles E.
1988 Questions of Substance, Questions That Count.
Historical Archaeology 22:13-17.
2001 Historical Archaeology Adrift? Historical Archae-
ology 35:1-8.
Comaroff, John, and Jean Comaroff
1992 Ethnography and the Historical Imagination.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Crumley, Carole L., and William H. Marquardt, eds.
1987 Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes
in Historical Perspective. San Diego, CA: Aca- Kirch, Patrick V., and Marshall Sahlins
demic.
Deagan, Kathleen A.
1988 Neither History nor Prehistory: The Questions That
Count in Historical Archaeology. Historical Ar- Leone, Mark
chaeology 22:7-12.
DeCorse, Christopher R., and Brian E. DiSanto
1999 Society for Historical Archaeology 1998 Member-
ship Survey. Ms. on file. Department of Anthro-
pology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
1996 Introduction. In History, Power and Identity:
Ethnogenesis in the Americas, 1492-1992. J. D.
Hill, ed. Pp. 1-19. Iowa City: University of Iowa
Press.
Honerkamp, Nicholas
1988 Questions That Count in Historical Archaeology.
Historical Archaeology 22:5-6.
Kelso, William M., and Rachel Most, eds.
1990 Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Ar-
chaeology. Charlottesville: University Press of
Virginia.
Kirch, Patrick V., and Roger C. Green
2001 Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia: An Essay in His-
torical Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
1992 Anahulu: The A nthropology ofHistory in the King-
dom of Hawaii. 2 vols. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
1984 Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology:
Using the Rules of Perspective in the William Paca
Garden in Annapolis, Maryland. In Ideology,
Power, and Prehistory. D. Miller and C. Y. Tilley,
eds. Pp. 25-35. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.

Deetz, James F. Lewis, Kenneth E.

1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of 1997 Historical Landscapes in Archaeology: The De-
Early American Life. Garden City, NY: Anchor velopment of the Frontier. In Carolina's Histori-
Press/Doubleday. cal Landscapes: Archaeological Perspectives. L.
1988 History and Archaeological Theory: Walter Tay- F. Stine, M. Zierden, L. M. Drucker, and C. Judge,
lor Revisited. American Antiquity 53:13-22. eds. Pp. 35-41. Knoxville: University of Tennes-
see Press.
Garraghan, Gilbert J.
1946 A Guide to Historical Method. J. Delanglez, ed. Lightfoot, Kent
New York: Fordham University Press. 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Re-
lationship between Prehistoric and Historical
Gibbon, Guy E. Archaeology. American Antiquity 60:199-217.
1989 Explanation in Archaeology. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell. Little, Barbara J.
1994 People with History: An Update on Histori-
Gosden, Chris cal Archaeology in the United States. Jour-
1999 Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Re- nal of Archaeological Method and Theory
lationship. London: Routledge. 1:5-40.
84
Moore, Lawrence E.
2001 The Misplaced Trowel. North American Archae-
ologist 22:387-402.
Mrozowski, Stephen A.
1991 Landscapes of Inequality. In The Archaeology of
Inequality. R. H. McGuire and R. Paynter, eds. Pp.
79-101. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Orser, Charles E., Jr.
1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World.
New York: Plenum.
Rathje, William L.
1979 Modern Material Culture Studies. In Advances
in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol.
2. M. B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 1-37. New York: Aca-
demic.
Rubertone, Patricia E.
2000 The Historical Archaeology of Native Americans.
Annual Review of Anthropology 29:425-446.
Sahlins, Marshall
1985 Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Schiffer, Michael Brian
1991 The Portable Radio in American Life. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
1994 The Electric Automobile in America. Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Schuyler, Robert L.
1970 Historical Archaeology and Historic Sites Ar-
chaeology as Anthropology: Basic Definitions
and Relationships. Historical Archaeology
4:83-89.
1988 Archaeological Remains, Documents, and An-
thropology: A Call for a New Culture History.
Historical Archaeology 22:36-42.
Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA)
2002 Guide to Higher Education in Historical and Un-
derwater Archaeology, 2002-2003. SHA Newslet-
ter 35(3): 15-38.
Teresita Majewski
Waselkov, Gregory A.
2001 Historical Archaeology, with Sails Set and Tack-
ing into the Wind. Historical Archaeology
35:20-22.
Whittlesey, Stephanie M.
1998 Archaeological Landscapes: A Methodological
and Theoretical Discussion. In Vanishing River:
Landscapes and Lives of the Lower Verde Valley:
The Lower Verde Archaeological Project. Over-
view, Synthesis, and Conclusions. S. M.
Whittlesey, R. Ciolek-Torrello, and J. H. Altschul,
eds. Pp. 17-28. Tucson: SRI Press.
Wolf, Eric
1982 Europe and the People without History. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Wood, Peter H.
1997 Digging Down and Looking Backward: The Awk-
ward Relation of History and Archaeology. In
Carolina's Historical Landscapes: Archaeologi-
cal Perspectives. L. F. Stine, M. Zierden, L. M.
Drucker, and C. Judge, eds. Pp. 29-33. Knoxville:
University of Tennessee Press.
Wood, W. Raymond
1990 Ethnohistory and Historical Method. In Archaeo-
logical Method and Theory, vol. 2. M. B. Schiffer,
ed. Pp. 81-110. Tucson: University of Arizona
Press.
Yamin, Rebecca, and Karen B. Metheny, eds.
1996 Landscape Archaeology: Reading and Interpret-
ing the American Historical Landscape. Knoxville:
University of Tennessee Press.
Young, T. Cuyler, Jr.
1988 Since Herodotus, Has History Been a Valid Con-
cept? American Antiquity 53:7-12.
Zedeno, Maria Nieves
1997 Landscapes, Land Use, and the History of Terri-
tory Formation: An Example from the Puebloan
Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 4:67-103.