CONTRIBUTIONS TO GLORAL HISTORICAL, ANCHAROLOGY Series aor: Chiarles B. Or ce 4 ou. (3) i ARCHAROLOGY OF TIHE MODERN WORLD ay aust Chases B. Orr, Je (496 A Historical | Archaeology of the - Modern World Charles E. Orser, Jr, 4) a ‘Newel PLENUM PRESS + NEW YORK AND LONDONThe Haunts of Historical Archaeology Celestion, Barscentram, eaptalam, and modernity te four mre hotly camentod words in presentdey shel Each Inyriad feel, angles, end expressions, pro- iroveray and rales pasions. Each subject chin hstrial detail. Experts from many ong hours peuriog over each one, blding it 19 ae whal ie reflected, to discover what my eld a lightly diferent way, perceived from there ‘enti, capitalism, and modernity means that Teannct do any one tithe justice here I feel vindicate, however, beewuse this book ie tet epecifically about any one of these dificlt subjects Stil, each tee isan integral part af historealarchaesogy, and [cannot torn tty lock oe them. Alef thers haunt Matoielarchaeslagy, trailing the il tke four quiet shadows They exist st every alte, on every laboratory ble, within every map and chart made, Sometimes ore ned to the forefront ta be the matjct ef analysis. At ether tim, they all may hang back ike ghostwrter, ever present but tuneckoowledged and unnamed, Regardless, each subject porvades Ineclogy and 40 must be ackoowledged, understood, Wenge ‘reat size, multiple dimensions, and diverse histo es of the four haus of hitorca achacelogy, I weuld be foalhardy to attempt a thorough analysis ofeach, though each is ‘eral the fl My pla bar i reach ar understand ing each topic, to dersonetrate how each fits int historical archoe- Fey. To accompa Uh tna, 1 have only two goals. Fes, I must eine each ape ofthe haunts aa that it as vlavance to histarcal she iw de eter ee ‘iow of captaliam that only makes sense Comumit;hstrialarchaalgita wold el be called upon tocaptors Aiscover how capitaliam ia rneeningfl to ther research, Second, ‘mast put my understand Tanage that i Conaatent with the mataliat perspective, oth Lasky are made ea Jerin that colaialiem, Burocentrinm,cepitalisn, end modernity are ‘ot vague, mystical things that oat around abewe our heads. I load, each one incorporates complex st of relations betwee eal ‘men and women, COLONIALISM: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY’: CONSTANT COMPANION ‘steric erchaealoy bas never been without cake, When Prank Selzler (1943218) summarized archseslogical research in the United State batween 1850 and 1912, he male reference the late 1900s, Setser ‘war uncorfartable with hie newly exined term. To nanan hin dis {ters he mugrsted (in tiny, selconsious Totten perhaps CCalonial-Archaeology would bea better tor.” Tn using the term “istrial archoeclagy” Setsler traversed ‘who attempted Lo deine their fod. In equa rhea: Firm, because ical archaeaogy in an ifort tverview of Amarican archnesiogy, legitimized the connection by {bntiing coleodal archneclogy oben nar suliviion” teal archacology. Harrington’ (1952:390) defvitian of clonstom ign and noneentroversial that leould be acca hy even ‘dial historia! arehacologit For aren, ech iam merely involved the traneplantatcn oe gre ronment” The e-clled parent eulvare continued o exercise contol ver the ealony “by politcal Lis, visits to the hw tration” Because the subject mater of esloial erlaeoegy w Colony, colonial archacology was simply the archaenlagy of Ese ‘pean places outside Europe ‘Sine Setslers and Hlarringtone day, mor hstriel arco {Gta have aeceptnd the ids that histericalarchaeangy and elon fam are inexorably inked. The iden lan hae reached the poneral Ta tnt atin Arches . i research at enlonial alles aroutd the world. Calo- ial archaeology thea becomna commonplace, acepled, and Unson- tested AL he same time, eslosal arcineology hat become routine, {ken fr granted, and oven potentially bering, Thus, tia posnble Folch book onthe archaeology of Prenchcolenaliam i Mini {Walthal 199), for example, and never once have clarialien tell cxpoced. cxnmined, or taken apart The book's many authors simply Of clonaliars us a procean Their aondanment of eal Sinlom tells reedors that Ue Lapis 2 well understood that discus tient wiecestary Histericalarchacologata know thet colonia refers to the transplantation of Buropanns te new lands, and Ut it involves the interaction of Buropenns with non-Europeana. Dee's [(1S7TS} well heoted,s-ostuniverelly ceepled definition of histor fea archaclogy supports thi view Colonial archaeology mpeann who veetured, th into the world. Archacologiets ety the ining me hr may of wooing ubintaen om wi ‘Ulubertone 1980339) ton stand in marked eontrast to colonial sadies,resenrdhars focus on the Ba es adaptation to thei new surroundings. Because thaes suse reundings compened bah gatucal and cultural landscapes, Kilor- ‘al orchaetogints often emphasis the European respanmos ta Uhele ‘ew situationn, Ther rearareh hegine with the Europenne and ex ‘pads outward. Conversely, investigators interested in aeclture- ti typically concentrate eh native eeponees te the European ive ‘Thr reasarch begins with th aboriginal residents of «site or tion. Signifeanly,Unoups,eccllsraton studies alo require Bue ropenna, The indigenous peoples are woually seen as reacting to Earapenn enerondhiment ‘Ceioial laden may ignore the natives altogether. i alight ering that the beck on French elonialin (Walthall 1991) T men ‘Vane above derived frm a eymposim entitled the "Conference on French Colonia! Archoeaogy tn Ue Iilinais Country” The eonfar- free participants who explered Native American tapes had theie Thane atien, howev studies per