CONTRIBUTIONS TO GLOBAL HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOLOGY Series Editor See Te Orser, J ilisal State University, Norma. ‘A xfISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE MODERN WOULD (496 (Charles E.Orser. de i, ay i issn] A Historical © Archaeology of the . Modern World: ¢ Charles E, Orser, Jt i ints velo PLENUM PRESS « NEW YORK AND LONDONChapter 5, The Entangled World of Artifacts A Science of Things ‘Technocrneies anid Comino Tho Strange Carer of Calan Ware Dilery ‘The Myatical Pipes of Palmares ....... . Chapler & Invented Place, Created Spae0 20.0... Archacologiets and Invented Space ‘Local Keetties and World Spce Inclusion and Bxclusion in the Spatial World "The Created Werlds of Gartoone =... Chapter 7. Can the Subalters Speok? Listening to the Silent Mon and Women ofthe Blodern Past... Speeches ofthe High aod the ‘When the Discourse Becomes » Shouting Match ‘Speaking with Power at Prlanaros and Gorttoese ‘Chapter 8 ‘Thick Globally, Dig Lacaty Mutcaled Dials, Moring om ie Wold Reattaching Europ vosss---e-000s+ Lacking beyond Burope =.» Global Historical Archacology in an Uniowabie Future ... 107 8 ue ut 123 an 1m Sam Mi m4 160 we m4 A Crisis in Historical Archaeology “is with theovies an with well: you may soe to the bottom ofthe eopeat if there be any water there, while another sball pass for ‘wondrous profound when ‘is merely shallow, dark, and empty” (Al- co 1890-698), Jonathan Serif the celebrated author of Gulliver's ‘Tels, penned thene words i 1726 during his tenure as dean ofthe ‘ajntic St. Patrik’s Cathedral ia Dublin. Many of today’ best literary scholars applaud Swift for his insightful socal commen taries, and generations of schouchildren learn the fine arto satire by ronding his emsaye and poems. Though sometimes biting and cllen abacure, Swift always gave freely of hia now timeless wisdom. In his Facful tle of Lemmcel Gulliver's curious eneoatars with Lilipations, Hoaytinhoms, and Yahoos, Swift used eymbols and imotaphors to Leach a about ourselves. Swifts obmorvation about ‘vele aud theoriea even fers subtle insights for today’s archaeal ists. Swit implied that like well, several theories ean exiet at the ne time, alten occurring se by tide. Unlike wells, howover, thee- ta beloid fountain ‘st Swit reveaied that theories have a dark side. They can be Aeceptive snd fase, dark and empty They canbe polluted fountains. ‘A theory thot at first maty seem enlightening, may eventually ap- per shallow and dry fut Swift found hape inthis werd of eompet- fog theories. Shafts of light penetrate the dark receses of ignarance fa schuinrssenrch for underalanding and enlightenment. Even the ‘mort profound theary, like Use deepest well, ean be explored and Inerpreted ‘Tieerie dt the intelectual Iendaeape ike wells ners ‘enlonial countryside. But like masy wella, some theories may re- ‘eal their secrets only beritantly after much probing ard wearching. Tut theie secrets can be revealed bocause theories, Hke wll, re te consti erentions of thoughtful men and women. 12 Chapter ‘This book is about the wellaprings of knowledge im historical archeeslogy Historical archaoolagata are wellknown for thei eur ‘ent about old, abandoned wells. [vor Nott Hume (1969510), the ‘renowned excavator of Colonial Will walls re “time capsules buried deep {fists would dispute hie wisdom, The munken walla of the past ave {Enown often to contain the discarded belongings of bygone genera tiene. Ata renlt,archacologats eagerly antieipate excavating wilh {n'a wells dreular confines. This ls at should be. at stricel archasologata gener ‘of archaealogieal theory with the Shafts ofthe past. Antiquated welle are important places for archae- ‘logata to investiga, Uut historical archaeology will only mature fora serious pursut when ite practitioners ince the deep theorel ‘al mues that accompany Ueir interpretations of the past. Histor taf archaesloiata should be jut as mpationt to study the well of theory a8 they ere to probe the mysteries of bricktined well, In thinking theoretically, historical achacsloisla should pretend thoy fare approaching an tnexcavated well for the fest time WELLS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE ‘Archacclogiets have always thought about Uieory fa fact, so saive ia the cary o theoretical thought in archasology Uist a Tit of references would fill pages (hut see Trigger 1989), With the evelopment of the New Archacslagy in the mid-1900s, mises of ‘Anglo-American archaeology became explicitly Uhecretieal. Progres- tive archecology professors requized thei thirety stinlents to pout Prominent pilosphers of eience. Though 1 {hers ould not distinguish between a poishord and a eureed, Nat | ana, they did understand how acholare dug wes of theory Arch visited thewe philosophical foustainheads to take ‘alan. Bo electrified was the atmosyliere tn i enty 1970 that moat ihe ged archacagiata lds in Whtorical Archneaegy . today would probably admit to having thought abeut archacelogieal thooty at some point i their professional cureers. "The widespread, almost pervasive interest in theory has per ‘hapa waned a bit since the heady, quasiveligious days of the New ‘Archaeology, but theory ie ill an Sotegral part of archaeological research, So ingrained is the wndorstanding of Uheory/s role that ‘most archacolista readily accept that all archesologicalectivity— even identifying m piece of lone aa aan arrow point—inludes theory to some extent (Gbon 1984248). Most contemporary archae- logicts would probably agree with philoapher of science John ‘Ketweny 1O89:80) when he wrate:"I doubt that we ean state a fact ‘atirely divorced from theoretieal interpretations” The commonplace neko identifying a plece of ehipped stone az ‘an artifact incorporates theory, then we may wall say that theery is irrevocably linked to archaeslogy. Expanding this thought, we may tusily imagine the importance of theory when it cares to Traming larger interpretations about past societies. Grdan Willey and Phil ip Phillips (1988:1), perhaps the two leading archaeolagie! theo- lata in tho United Stats in the 1980, put the situation plainly and “integration and interpretation without thoory are ‘But interpretations ef the past are never easy to formulate, In fact, they’ are uavally contend and often perhaps wouslly—hetly debated. Controversies between archaeologists arise because the pasta neither straightforward nor simple. Also, because interprata: tion rests on theory, competing views can easly exit side by side, do Swifts well, Because the past is not completely knowable, we ‘can never be certain that our interpretations are correct. Mare im- portant, several competing interpretations, resting en different theories, may be true at the same Une. Eack may serve to explain the past fo «slightly different manner. The earthen ringlrta that dat the landscape of rural Irland provide an example. Driving through the Irish eountryside, we eould find, with litle difeuty, reasctable men and women who interpret the ringforts as defensive ‘works buil by fairies. Reinforced by ancient myths and legends learned as eildren, these men and women are convinced that their lalerpretation is true. Professional archaeologists of eourse, would Misagree,arpuing instead thet the ringforta were fortified, defended armatend built by real men and women during the Late Iron Age (Flanagan 1992-95), Nonethless, both interpretations eoealst to-eaptee ea Arehneabey : day, exch rostingon clearcut, though oen unstated —perhaps even ‘emplex questio, “How dy 9 know what we know?” How do we aber pl ‘eally know that irish rngforta wore not but by facia? Different theories of the past are possible becuse “sincere inte thin is tre about prehatoie wrehasology, what about histori: ligent people ean disagree" (Cisbon 1980°7) Ax Bruce Trigger (1080) Fal archaely? Dow thoy ts ay baler song arieaop ts ‘ai, the highest-level theories are lke languages, beemsre oe em f _Interested in the more recent pat fexprese any idea using ther. Like languages, lowever, theories en in istorical erchaculagy any belie ‘be unintelligible. Alo, translations ean vary, lending o widesprea cr reasnnable thar those of dlinagreesent. Ia fact, disagreements have been wo cumrsoninm mn 1977, no lows an that by the early 1980s, Merrilee Salmon (1982-140), 0 (1977:18) prophesied tat philasophor of archaselogy, wrote: “Widespread agreement exiats in “the forefont in tory building” by {That archavologylacke well developed Useorice thal comme interien erehncologiets would be tance" In other words, archoeolagists could only agree that Uiey Tighis down Swift's wells s tht their w ‘ould mot agree on ane anothers theories aout the past This wide ‘ther specialties might ae what had been {ord was in w positon to know i subject. Almont five” among their collegues (Moore and Keone 19833), Many ar Ind served as Morea Maxwells field sasistant wt hacologists seemed lost and exnfused about Ureory, not knowing "nackinae, w enfonial French and Orth stronghold wn from wiseh wll (drink. Many sampled rovees! wis indieri {ip of Michigan's lower peninsula (Saxwell and Binfon inatply drawing theoretical water frat from one, then from anothee ford, who’ certainly knew prehistoric nrchacelogy, alia ‘This rampaat malaive, rater than constituting » deadly dineane, ‘mately familiar with historical archaeology. Dut was he ‘ly shomed “Unat archaeology isnot the atraightfrward and pro- historical archaeslopala be fe the forefront of ‘gressive study of the past that textbooks would have ws beliees” {Gibbon 1980.7), ‘Archacologiats have not been alone in fvally rellsing the deep Regrettably, infos prophecy was not ienmediately fulfled, ‘complesity of tir eld. Historians, for instance, have recealy re 1m fue, his vision remained unremlzed 10 years late. Perhaps in Uckled their “bjectivity crisis" and have delved farther in trying 9 ‘asawe: to Hinfords optimism, histori! archoeslgista organized understand how they know the past (Kloppenberg 1989; Lowenthal ‘the 1987 plenty seasien ofthe annual meeting of the Secely for 1985; Novick 1988), Miatorieal Archovology specifically to nasees ter Fels Uveoretcal and interpretation aro 0 ‘neath, Many historical wrehaccleyiste faced the dim reality that emomrs ‘infor had beon wrong. More importantly, perhaps, some his. prebiatery: no one lef any written accounts of te period, no torical achaeoloiats felt sense af urgency: Rather then being a Grew mapa or ook photographs. Cave paintings and sthor ancirnt leader, the unthinkable had happened: histerieal erchasology had ‘messages are often ambiguous sign pests defying ean interpret ‘developed » malaive. Nicholae Honerkamp (1988:5), the senion’s ton. Some cannot be deeiphered at all. "Th, tho nrchacolien! E organiza, bly stated what many historical archaeciogistselrendy interpretation of prehistory in infitely arguable because wo ne new: tht historical archaeology was “distinctly atheortinl” $0 ‘really knows what happened. Corsptent archacolagints base ther ‘profound wos the malady, 9 deep was the wound, that Hoerkamp Interpretations on careful research and scholnry conjctare ard ‘oufeaed te fectny a “theoretical angst” As he assessed the situa they dnagree. The distance in years betmeen x tundern srchacelo tion, “cammone scems te have declared » moratorium of thinking Bist and the preistrie people understudy ensures wnkviomabliy, ‘stmt snd discussing the reasons that underlie histori ston fo inatter how innovative oF senile « particular interpreta ‘sonreh" lmerkap 19885), paiont wa ot ‘may appear. Aa #romlt, much ofthe engning theoretieal debate in lites wa ein, diagnos Pechinrie archnestogy emncerns the simple, though frastatigly terms of Uroory aty ‘chapter 1 Hlonerkamp's position was a strong one, but he was nt ean in ‘is opinion. Charles Cleland (198813, who hd been involved i theoretien! insues a historical archaeology sinco Use 1960s, sail Plainly. “Tt must be conchiced that historical archaeologists in gen- ral are simply not interested in ar concerned with theory” It feemed undeniable that by Une 1980s, moat historical archaeologists Shad taken to heart Jel, Cembeas (2968:164) entirely pessimistic ‘ew ef 20 years eaclier: “Discussions concerned with methods and hoory in historical archasslogy are forthe mast part w waste of Aime "The juxtaposition of Binfard's optimism in 1977 and Hone: amps and Cleland's possimiam in 1087 is striking. How could the ‘once bight future of bistorical archaeology have tarnished so quick- {yt Had something terrible happened is those years Lo subvert the (eld? Had « diaboliea! terrorist sabotaged the field te the peint of tivielizing 7 What caused historical archneologiats to abandon theory? he anewers to these important questions undoubtedly te in many places, bul perhaps one key place te start looking for Uhern is {nthe dincipline’s past Wael. The history of historical archaeology is ‘ot one ef my central topic i this book, but certain of Hs aspects fre important enough to demand attention. Av auch, we mvs take ‘Brief detour fate the Bistory of theory in historical archaeology. 1 ould start my tour almont anywhere, but sn excellent starting point in with Lewis Binford, the optimist of wrchneologicl theory. ADRIEF DETOUR INTO ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORY 1 JgIB,Biford was charged with writing «paper forthe plen- ary aesbot the Sait for Historical Archasclogys anal meet- {ng The overall goa of th sesion was to ring tagetherpreminent tetialare to discus Une role of material culture in historical arche- ‘Slice research. Binfords central role inthe season was nol it ftedfont. Net only was he m prominent archaeological thinker— Some would say he wos the Yndor in the fekd—he also had personal ‘perience wi histerical archaeology Histoiclarchaesogials ou tery sought hia cerments for both reasons, For his part, however, Binford wns not convinced that he had ony wisdom te offer. In feck, hha waa father perplonod by the prospect of speaking to his eager ACzhie tn MisanealArcbuetogy . ‘ecienee, 1 can imagine him sitting at his desk staring at an empty ge, impatiently waiting for hie Uhooghta to emerge in coherent form. Rather than goose at his dilemma, though, { Lelieve Binford imalf beat described his situaton 10s Mew Yur Day 1976. ae eng ta pepare per er penn ‘Shas crence on bate acy shave saya ose? ‘Thi wan the cig ay ata nbn reparation er Thaw | tk tar the flowig ee thn wae ‘Palrne ar wchacdegr weld vt ne grins ave ined ‘Sven neat te mony tac ete! rebaraapal tres ‘Sluaty my potion ene om te “sere sists of ‘otros Why? Wyld Ihe neefreleond eda Sroreriate nagar oy enog 8 pe. | ectnoed to be ‘tay is" Chery {tat pss eg “istra™ Many of w, reading Binford' comments inthe mid-1900e, may be shocked. Why would such a prominent archaeologist, with long sanding asscclation with historical archaeology, be s0 concerned ‘shout the word "historical"? What precisely was the problem? Did Dinford sense Honerkarp's angst long before mast others had rey T eannot pretend to know what Binford was thinking as he struggled wits his paper. 1 perceive in hi qua fatellctual legacy cat over biaorical archacology bythe American archacclogiat Walter Taylor (1948). Binford’s confusion in 1975 indi- ‘ales that he had flly adopted Taylee’s views on history and anthrp; ology. Because Dinford (19728) epealy admired Taylor, we mask ontiaue our quest with him. Tayler, it seems, was the source of Binfords deep-seated angst. inferd admired and was perhaps at bit awed by Taylor's dos- toral dissertation, A Study of Archavology, completed in 1943, but delayed pain ntl 148, Mt of te work is aman critique of American archaeology, and Binford and « generation of Now Archacologiets voraciously drew wiedom from it ike water {om a wall (Binford 1972; Deets 1988) Though Taylor deal speci cally with the practice of American prehistoric archaeology, his ‘work holds a pocullar, bekind-the-seenes place in the histery of. Chmpter ‘thought in histerieal arehacology, Its importance ties in Taylor's ‘willingness Uo addres in detail the knoity istuo ofthe reat etween history and anthropology. Thowgls the miject land inter fated British archacolegiats for many years (sce Viogarth 1800), here wan an American archaeologist raiting the guiow of archae- logical erthodeny by juxtaposing history and anthropotoay ‘Tayler atached the very foundations of archeoingieal resect, He was bold and direct and rch of hi ext is unmistakably blot Tayler found a dy well of archaeological thought, he anid wo. He ‘nsmmed names and pointed fingers, and kn doing 0, Teor inven tently confronted several iaeves of impertance t hitorical arch ‘logits, Addressing one ofthe most basic, “What lns history tw do ‘vith cultural anthropology?” Taglar worked lke a watchmaker, tak- ing the back off both history and anthropology to examine their mer workings and to ece whether their paris wore interchense able, “taylor decided that both historians and cultural anthropato ists incorporate a four-step snalytial method thal guides them {Through the gears and springy of humen existence. Both kinds of Scholars begin their resenrch by defining 4 researeh problem or tsabject of tudy. Once this often dificult ask s completed, they both ‘allet and evaluate information that will help thew to understand the problem: hth bistrians and anthropolgiat then impose oder ‘onthe collected information and bogin tse process of aynthenis an Interpeetaton. In thi lant, intespretiveatep historians and coltaral fanthropologits paint their pictures of human existence, building cir Mees of everyday Tie from the inforrntion they choowe to ‘llect. Taylor figured that suthrnpologats au histriane 0 foorstep method becaune neither can engage in experimen [Neither historians nor anthropologists ea go inte a labora reproduce the French Revol ton or reerente the Crow kinahip ays {em Information about both subject, and all siilar subjects, can be collected and interpreted, but neither can be re-rentod with test tubes oF laboratory mie. “Taylor's analysis to ths point was not controversial The four step methed aptly described the wny meat historians and celtural “nthropologits conducted research. Few members of either disc- line could disagree. Bath devioe problems fur stody and then wet Shout collecting tnformation that will permit them to compare # ‘plurble interpretalion using that information. Controversy arate, Fhowever, with Taylor's fit Tove of analysis. It was here hat ‘Taylor Calan Mere Aohaentony . se the purmite —o i Son cages free slo “ple inter nthe l presen sien a eting coed on see der ‘lcnoquence of eves tates wih he loader Pal Salivoptagite. Do, enthrepaagl in tort tev! of ely Chai ‘entory Engiond, Dsckst inana oF into Cyl 10461, Anth tris thw cele ned eG $eser enced tha the lack fda {eitce met ereelas tod nt ah the tne concerned, archeslgiat cul ba mopeogta Te “ciel tet Te what the ‘vih'te dicoereey sat hs sujet alter eral question Taylor wan am ey ens Wl te ‘Senta the our eh cota ste Nt lees otlemting to undertend the argo pees St hren elses? Tonle wes pena, but doar ‘hase welsh ardhennegit weld impel the lean or ire ‘The eotroveray Tala’ work parked in pobre area cy hasbeen arersed fore (na fr sxample, Gibbon 108581 Tinh Monto threaten date need ot ecru here Wat decidedly petinen, levers Unet Tayler option seat Mtary tnd enthrepelogyguined prominence i Mattel erchaslogy Ta {tt Taylors mpct on the dio peat het cant be ignored, Mis dnetalon wae repetiihed in 1007 jut ohne rch ‘logy was bing far nganined in bth the United Stats (ts 1009; Piling 1007) and Great Dian Berton 1008), Binford ad red the frat edition of aplr’s bok, bt after 1967, th ext was tendly avail toa new georain of enge ect ah a Bany of thane hikers wore Mri archaea ‘Whether Taylors werk creed the enfin o tor aly, ws alendy prevent in choealgeal eces unimportant The Siricanc this tok seme rn in explct bandlog on io {hat deeply concerned tril ercealgit—ane that onetwplert ite on cexmting ee PeTathe it eoing fo broken arama or were they anthre Taam win aply chen to une srchosogy in Uae wud of retin? Soha Cater 190718) gave nocinetvlce to the Tre eriion when he refered toe Hara erchaclogit Tithe anthropaput turned Nisa! wer archoesngit othe Yitaranemerianstinrel archosslogs” Ths comment we MeSiutes the 'sme ar thet Tapa Saelan a Felned. BENS, lcterespetcdexcrear st damestorn sed probaly the apse the Unie Sats teach ela elvecayeurse peers wekaclogy (Cuter 1077100, 199420) id nat even 1 tm tsun when ein to wht be id 2g Porat Gets cofanien the clnrtat adeaton a Uh here Eo that hed settled over Metal archaolgy. Tes dubte oer whaseul nce sie stss—bitarana evasthropmgias=faiuny reed instar archacsiogy dating Sepa ocativeyura, Thee snguged nth controversy est Si ted one et thes potions, Some aged at historia rhe ‘iy wan esotally ohare dacipine asd that enthroolg eaeiaig wor no eri io the nveaigaton sarc we GURNEE Spe larrngtn 2008 Nt! Hume 196, Walker 107, (ss Yonoh Gunes orgued tnt Materiel chology wa eal nd fanthroplgy deed othe cert pt (Cleland and Fi {ing 1868 Fortes 1505; Mrwsowat 198, Schuyler 1970, South 1977). A third group proposed that history and anthropology should rolled becaune var penn oeogregale two such ovis ve sie aucipince (Dengan and Seardevile 86; Dymond 15M Sm Mea oer Sut 1068) Fer het rp, tra dtanaelogy wane spares nique dsdpline. Propacenta ef the various viewpoints caried on «Tong, ¥ome- tie eat shen pln xchange es Uy alee el fhe hearts and minds of Hester eebaclogits: Though the de- Wieaties pwn nd pra hop eek ame, The propunanta never held ralles to convince thet ne Siipued colleagues ofthe aghteounneasof thir potion. They insved se repagandh and tock ne al page advertisement loa wee aport They hed no great plane, and orunied ne concered om Tacs Tose, vos eon was cmmponed of achelatecnvinesd thatthe ferpeive wan fr saying tha pec “mht ara Uy ted the stay ese to bacon we nintreting Tot a mah a Wltoict Arch er " onsensoe for the 19903 was predicted by Bernard Fontana (1968-78) during the height ofthe debate in 1967. Fontana and that historical archaeology "wil not be promated by ilkcorwidered da-_ Seesaw herons and utopia by acute ta ‘thers are doing mayhern to ther sites because oftheir deparumen- {al brand of training” Since 1987, several highly qualified noa- frchaeoloiats have foved eflortlassly between histery end anthro- pelegy, visibly demonstrating Fontana's wisdom (so, for instance, Trees 1960; Mints 1986). Ne les a scholar than Margaret Mead (2951-5) realized as early as 1961 thatthe distinction between bisto- 17 und anthropology sea “fast bocoming obsolete” Today we may sty that for sony scholars the two fields are distinet only in “icv, academe specialization sunae" (Galley 1985-241; lad ba Gina 1976: Zinn 197011), In the 19908 we may easily diana the history-anthropology ‘debate in historical archocology sitevial: Using tha gif of its- tight, we inay se that Ht resolved nothing “After the dust from the Gabates had settled, many historical ‘emselves at historians, while "we cannot ignore yrerous because ‘tereated the camps, no matier how loosely organised. Iatend of ‘working logether to define and refine ther field, the more commit ted proponents of the three positions frequently disagreed vehe- ‘mently, often sing unflattering and even embarrassing epithets to Moward 1976; Thurman 1974). These vitriolic exchangae indicated thatthe participants thought the staies were high, Uist historical Bat the debate served very real way to retard the theoretical maturation of historical ta fack, the seas fom the do- ‘ate hae not entirely hesld, even ater years of malaie. As Bar ‘vara Late 1904:20) recently clmerved: “Une attitude may atl be fins that historia! archaoology ie somthing of « junior varsity where simple confirmation of historical ue is the main goal ithe docs ot say precisely where she thinks this aittude prevail bt ‘ay perception fe that itis to be found within archaeology fel istrial archaeologists may not be considered tobe real players in the great archasologieal game. Al best, they may be called in us substitutes now and then ert one anther (ae, for example, Demy 196M; Dally 1968; srchacology mattered, and that they believed in their perspetivea By VSR aMany historical urchacslogiets found the debate tobe intltee tually exhausting. And it may have convinced more Usan ove ar- chaoulogit thatthe history—anthropalogy debate was te only valid Uheoretieal concern of their disespie. Mirful ofthe verbel violence ‘occasioned by the debate, many historical arekscalogiate had te eo: front the inescapable fact that the debate spent thelr creative ef forts IFthinking about theory in historical archaeolegy tenn cea fronting the history-anthropology fame, then perhape the deeper Snoves of binlorieal archaeology were better left sone. As reral, many historical archaealogisis miey have been ready to ecept Iai Walker's (19673132) aeseaement that too much archacaogy “elutered with irrelevant theory” Perhaps this wae the source of {the malaise that Honerkamp, Cleland, nnd others sensed i 1987, ‘The nignificance of tne view that historical archacolngy i athe freical should not be downplayed. Even ao, thin perapective i din (sts, inthe context of archaeology If we enm ngree tet all archacolegy invalvas tory to some degres, how ea it fellow log tealy that hisorial archaeology ta overtly nonthwaretica? In etoee ‘words, why do prehistorians regulary think about theory, while far {oo aan historical archaeologists do nat? Why area many Natori cal archacologins interested in lea intellectually Laxing auljocts like the sae a ‘of cannonballs and the bore dimenions af smoking pipe stoma? Many historical archaeologsta feeus exelu- sively onthe minutiae of the past, ignoring the often complex theo- Tatica owuce that may affect Saat sinution, ty thelr for, ix Joba Goggin’s words, to “get dawn to brasa tacks" South 1961), mo historical arehaoolopiats have fused intently on the brare lacks, forgetting all else. ‘My porception that most historical archooslagats sss ply grew weary of the histery-enthropalogy debate snd therefore igvated theory altogether is somehow uneatifying. I bogs the queslion of wliy? Rather than simply to-admit thats problem exint, we must be called pon to understand wisat iti about historical archaeology ‘thal seoma ta make theory nneceseay. \WIY THEORY SEEMS UNNECESSARY ‘The exact reasons forthe lack of theorising in bistorcal archne ology may be difficalt to discover, Bemee Ulcas, however, way be Tod eutside archaeology Daniel ooretin (1987), he peli histor Theory Seems Newilens” ean political Uough hae Skil hie comments The wa ncreaslgly Op the one hand, no penple oh ‘Americans to the belief Ut Une Ueery of governance. Most Amerleatt Fathers deeply believed i the patie! Ae withthe Contin. eof the fn story. At the same time, however, 1 peal ‘lly disinterested in pliticel philosophy on simply donot have a tradition o thinking abual the fotellectul, theoretical ways (though it must be ud E shout it in several other ways). This paradox troubled find « reasonable explanation frit While the researeh to unlock thie American pursl, Boortin landed on the ‘ea of “givennesn.” Ik sozmed ta him that mort Americana accept that the values ond baies ofthe United States are piven by. “certain fgets of geography and history peculiar (o ve" (oorati, 1416-77), The United States is Ure way it i beenue i i the United States. For most Amerieans, the explanation bears no far Uhr Investigation because iit eelEavident. Thin quasi-explanation wae not good enough for Boostin, Dely- tng dpe, fond bored within the en of “vee re “focon hal cea with a perfect political from the start. So complete i the Uneory that further discussion is unnecessary. The Feundiog Fathers were amart men, they knew what hey were doing cds that Americans reesive thls national values frm the present. ‘And because the founding politcal theory ie always impli in the Drovent, Americans Inve no need ta wonder about their values or to ‘itizens have strayed fren the way the Pounding Fathers wanted ings tobe. Ifa peablem exits in Amerie, it reruls frm how far wwe have strayed from Use Pather#’eriginal theory, not fom the ‘theory isa The flaw ies with Americar, nat with Americe. Final-iy the third fe a based on heen of astnily. Most Amerienns ttvsion the nation's posto merge with he presen none unin tupled fow of history Thawgh ngiicant and potently rel {nary events have actred in Americas histry-the Ciel Wes, the Great Depreston, enlwer and ch rights prterts—thare tough exherene to provide snes of unity fr mest Americana ‘The country they honor and reapct i ml the ana place that Thomas Jefrnn and George Wesingln honored aad respected 260 years ap. Nothing drastic enough has happened to distance ot ftom theee ioe and thoughfel men andthe time in which thay ‘eatd the gret export n democracy Bosra Seas ars sry shat Ameren story as son from hin sndoedly unique vantage pit Te dl nt even Hint haclagy in ww de ene Fens logy never romed hi mind. Nonelen we reerenc ose Kea erchaclogy fac, bin eas Son be ead a suggest posse reasons why a theory sven needles in historical arched THsterglgrcherlory has atwaye bon somthing o & poe, cousit to prehistoric archaéslojfy— Little's (1994:30) “jinior varei- ‘y Habert Schaar T1908:36 waa old enough to suggest Ul most Natoricelechacsogetswuller fom a P-P-P-P-P Comer” or the “Porn Prone! Progress Froiered by Prhitoriana~ Tie mal dy wan inkrety copes that incledar ihe sl dnacing bel {hat prehitoriae se mar sopiaiated ethology than falercheslogits nd ware Imperarly, have sues lnved Dreeesal statements" Many histeriaeehacslogits have flo Acved on the minutiae of archaclogy—Gogginy “rac tacks” San ley South 1977 8-12) denied the fous the oe ing acts of the pun ot"partialarim” Ann expenio of how much Mstoial treheoaogyTeane on ie pebistre allengve, Kathles {ipats0) rowrte Noa Home 1964) andion to ‘ed “handmaten lo pebistri archeology" It thus appear hat the fow Nnterel erchoalgita wh ers Ttereted tn Chery te {he dincpline's booming generally Lorowed Ui ens rom the eee ihe ot erence Rr rh iy ld econ redly Aco tat Lene ourding {and Te foun nara sore prbisrian. 80 rather then engin the fretont of teary bug Dnord Unaght, str tel erhaslagits have tne athe ling ee, picking op wha ver theoretical refuee Uy thought they eau ue. eid Us fone from w century ogo. Ae ouch, South could simply A CeIn Wistorel Archaestogy «21s initatinfeagas41988:11) and others (Cleland and Pting 1068 Mrosowah 108; Boul 1970) have hea, quik Lo pneu Spl tno Shel etn owe the ts second ae rd poltethet Cory tpl fa duty Ameren Hine coyote in Aric babery ‘etmach mar ial oor explre beth ens aroun E wy in tha reat ofthis book. At thi pont, it may suffice to ay that ther reasen why a theory seems needles in histrial archaeal ny stems froin the artifocta and sles historical archaeologists snd. Many of te things and the places from the mers past can bbe enily und readily recognized today. Ofcourse, this i not univer. ‘lly true, and numerous eeaniples of unrecagsisable ejecta and ‘alin structures are constantly being found by hietoricalarchae- ‘logiats, But what I mean here is that the “thingy” of historical archseology—glacs bottles, shell buttons, iron moath harps, bran door incckera, ceramic bowls, copper coin, limestone foundations, ‘weaden fence lines appear tobe eal and readily understandable loday. Ana result, many historical archacologite often feel Hitle need to “explain” the function and wee of the ebjects they exeavate Yer example, when Stanley South (1977:68-71) explored the diste- bntion of straight pins atthe eighteenth-century Public House and ‘Tllor Shop in Irusewick Towa, Nerth Carolina, he did not ved to sxplain straight pina He could juatiiably ensue that straight pos Jhad much the seme fanction thay have today tn at ri srchaeologists, homer Phaedrus said in a. 8, that things—even physical things —a sxidon what they seam. Like Swifts wells, the meaning of ator “things can be hurting deceptive and desidedly troublesome eee Chapter 8, "The iswue of historical continuity leo. has important sign «cance to historialsirchealogy. We may well argue thatthe pasta follows years in a never-ending flow of event. have discovered, ax Greek. philosopher see Leone 1978), Though not argue that history does not | unfold year by year, believe thatthe modern era incorporates ine portent dicusetions with what came before, partiularly prehistory. ‘As aresult, the subject mater of hiatoriel archaeology isiaherentiy Aifere fron that stadied by other archaeologats, expcielly pre-Iistorians. This idea requires cuteful explanation, and soit subject of Chapter 3. Asa preview, though, my perapectv pest con be eaely stated I believe that history wana vadly diferent ine” than prehiatery. Ata reel, the study ofeach Lime requiree a slightly different eet of ideas and concept, and if not new ides ‘clirly, atleast an innovative slant on old ideas. In thie important once, historical archaeologists are unlike prebstorians. 1 thus te jest Stephen Mrorowak' (198821) ion (hat “enough structural ‘properties may have been comenea to allow fr comparison to be ‘rawn, albeit cautiously” between “Brith colonial Ameren, Meso potamia, and Mesoamerica” I beliove, and historical archaeology ‘hows, that only the moat basie similarities inherent in fan be found between celenist Boston, Ur, and Tenochtitlan. As ‘laces with different histories and diverse populations these tree lirhan centers wore quite iss. ‘So, Boorain's esaay can be used to augesst why some, and toe even moat, historical archacalogists find theory needless i hi torical archaeology. [have only shown the relevance of his ideas to historical archasology in the briefest pomsible way because » fall ique of archaeologial history i nat my intent. My comments ‘ould easily be expanded tenfold. Rather than doing this here, now turn to my research program, leving the more complete study of eologial hiatory to future analy, ‘TILE RESEARCH PROGRAM, ‘TILE SITES, ‘AND THE PERSPECTIVE, ‘Though to this paint Ihave repented use the word “theory.” have been careful nat to explain precisely what L mean by the term. Ihave been overt and open about several other topes, but curiously Jon my use ofthis important word. Fenn nev sey that I have tly weed the word “Uhoury” because it has nrchaestagieal relevance, [Archaeologists are not surprised by the term and readily accept its presence, though they may nol agree so readily to its precise mes ih Dictionary, definitive souree on Siansard reer or nyaters of facts or phenomena.” This definition is consistent with how mest frchaeelogiate understand the term. speak in term of research progr {| lineuigy. iin (1989:2-5) rooted hi concept A rien Mitr Arar | hie overview of the histany of wtchaeological thought, Br “tvigger1980:20-22) nal Una xin. on Uhroo level. Law “el hoon iva li demonstrations that coe archaectogicat deposit is earlier than anther, and observations that mon and women in a portialat bia dt ‘mays: Middleevel theeees ate ‘count for the regularities i haan involve the relationship between popalath for rere food production, High level level theories As Trigger (1980-25-24) pated ay have filled the shelves of medero libraries with felationchips betwoen high, riddlo,and low thearlen logis chaoeg to focus their attention on low-level Se omer or the upper level have become something oft Industry lr archnesog. : Much of te dicusson about theory eonfusing tn fc tay tw the mianmicatmphere that hovers over understanding prea iy what theory is hat has driven many hstercal archacloias to the hinterland o archaslgia! thought. To overcome hap ‘nd to bring historia! archaelogat back bo the aio "cant re bands ee Ap od My andeataning fa eeareh oranda Quy Oi 1980) explanation i bin well-crafted ert of the New Ar ¢ the reeaeeh | {rogram in the idous of philosophers af science. Though perhape a formidable ter, revenrch program ia seply a framewerk for tenting tho underlying piniples nd aanumptions af reseorch, | Scientists use research programs to trsetare end orgaiae thei ‘rts ara o mak explict the underlying namumptions they bulla {nto theefintngs and itoeprtations. We may eonceptalie re sere ran a an nero elk fea and me Used n'a particular research projet. Research programs define ‘hater proces cn be dx they define th iia ted ality they define tha8 Chapter ‘scholars accept a research program as long as it soem to explain ‘and dieaed it when i stops making sense ‘Thun, [intend to wea research program inthe sense mennt by the ecka with their werd thearia, from whence we get “theory.” Th ri comes from the reo thea, mesning “eeing, looking ak Theor, methods of historical inthe iat true thee not fatend to explore “airleas theory” without some exenection to ‘tetual archaeological material. As such, I use two archacological ‘ltes—Palmares, Brasil, and Gorttose, ireland—to anchor my re- earch program in the reality ef the ‘Palmares and Garttoose at first seem 20 diasimilar that my ‘combined use of them hore may soem a bit oil, and periaps even ldiaayacratie. Stark differences between the two seltements are readily obvious. Runaway slaves, fleeing the coastal sugar planta- tions of northeastern Brazil, created Palmares around 1605 and lived there until 1694, Peasant farmers fit lived at Gorttoose ia Tlacommon from about 1780 until 1847. The site ere sin lar in that both coused being occupied on dates that are historically known, bat the reasons for termination are different though related ‘The Portoguese, afer 20 years of annual assaults, Gaally hired nto deatroy the capital af Palmares, which thoy did en 1604. The Portuguese allackers acal- tered the men and women in the nine other villages as well. fn 1847, at the height of the Great I town ettate, on which Gortizoze was situated, erderad the eviction fand susated emigration ofits atarving tenants. Beginning on May 21, thousands were shipped to Amerie, with many dying slong the ‘way. Gertooee and Palmares are alan geographically datnct, bing, ‘About 8,000 ke (5,000 mid apart (Figure 1). Whereas Palmares was