Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Neither History Nor Prehistory - Deagan 1988
Neither History Nor Prehistory - Deagan 1988
interconnected nature of the modern world (that is, historical archaeology contribute that cannot be
the world after 1500). The work of Immanuel achieved by any other field of study? The answer,
Wallerstein (1974), Fernand Braudel (1974) and obviously, lies in historical archaeology's unique
Andre Gunder Frank (1967) have underscored the capability of gaining simultaneous access to the
necessity for more integrated approaches that tran- past through multiple, independent categories of
scend traditional disciplinary boundaries. This has evidence, a data base characterized by Schuyler as
had an obvious effect on our sense of alignment " the spoken word, the written word, observed
and identity in historical archaeology since 1970, behavior and preserved behavior" (1977). Our
in that a strict distinction between history and special purview therefore is most appropriately
anthropology now appears not only difficult, but those issues related to life in the post- I500 world
unproductive . This has occurred in other social that require both testimony and material by-
sciences as well, involved in the interdisciplinary products to be accurately understood.
area studies that arose in the decade of the 1960s. This special attribute of historical archaeology
These studies forced an awareness among social has been recognized and discussed from the earli-
scientists (including historians) as to the scope and est days of the field (Harrington 1955; Deetz 1968;
methods of each other's disciplines. As a result, a Schuyler 1970), most frequently in the use of
number of synthetic studies of modern world simultaneous " ernie" and "etic" statements about
phenomena have blurred disciplinary lines and the same past circumstances as an index to the
impacted our thinking about the social sciences veracity of the documentary record. These multi-
(Braudel 1980, 1981, 1974; Wallerstein 1974; ple contexts have also been used to gain insight
Wolf 1982; Mintz 1985; Sahlins 1985). These into past perception or cognition (Deetz 1968,
works seek to understand and/or explain the pro- 1977; Leone 1977b; Deagan 1983:264-65;
cesses by which cultural forms mediate social and Yentsch 1983). In the context of the modern
ecological relationships among human populations world, this simultaneous access to documentary
in the post-15oo world, often through Marxian- and material evidence provides the most direct
derived analyses of capitalism and its impacts. path to recovering and understanding economic
Historical archaeology is clearly relevant in this organization and the social processes related to it.
undertaking as the only discipline with both chron- This has been proposed by Leone as " reading
ological depth and access to the non-intentional society through its production" (1977a:xx) and
material by-products of life in modern times. demonstrated by Rathje (1977) to be a workable
In order to realize our potential contributions in and effective approach. Somewhat puzzlingly,
this effort, however, we must recognize the fact however, historical archaeology has failed for the
that we are not dealing with an extension of the most part to effectively integrate independent doc-
pre-15oo world in North America, but rather with umentary and archaeological data to produce oth-
a very complex global system that cannot always erwise unobtainable results. While there are, of
be effectively studied within the traditional con- course, exceptions to this, such as the creative
fines of a single discipline. Historical archaeol- integration of probate inventories by Deetz, Bow-
ogy's obvious niche as a modern, synthetic field of en and others (Deetz 1977; Bowen 1975), we have
inquiry is in the study of the processes and inter- in general tended to treat documentary and archae-
relationships by which human social and economic ological information as separate and non-over-
organization developed and evolved in the modern lapping categories of data, using one source (be it
world. We must first, however, develop concep- archaeological or documentary) to reinforce or
tual and methodological tools that will allow us to refute the conclusions arrived at through the other
take advantage of our special capabilities. Only source.
then will we be able to both ask and answer Another common practice is the use of some
questions that count. uncontrolled and often biased sample of the avail-
Given this topical and temporal niche, what can able documentary data base to help interpret the
NEITHER HISTORY NOR PREHISTORY 9
"meaning" of the archaeological remains. Al- sense, in that they either concentrate on a specific
though this sometimes provides what we often call time and place, or explain a particular circum-
"a richer picture of life in the past," it does little stance by reference to historical developments.
to take advantage of the real potentials of historical There are many such questions that depend upon
archaeology, and produces little information that the multiple evidence access of historical archae-
probably could not have been acquired through a ology. One obvious and early-appreciated example
more thorough examination of the historical doc- is the archaeology of slaves and other economi-
umentation. The questions that count cannot be cally and socially disenfranchised groups (see
answered by either historical or archaeological Schuyler 1976, 1980; Singleton 1985). Neither the
data alone, or through simple comparison of the historical record nor the archaeological record
two data categories. alone can serve to reconstruct the past lifeways of
New World colonialism , Western expansion, such people, or to investigate their roles in the
the rise of capitalism and its myriad related issues complex, interconnected modern world. The ap-
offer an important focus for modern historical plication of historical archaeology to traditionally
archaeology, and one that places it squarely within historical issues for which there is simply inade-
the basic concerns of the social sciences (see quate documentation constitutes a valid and impor-
Leone 1977a). There are many issues that can only tant focus in the field, and one that boasts the most
be understood by reference to both documentary successful contributions of historical archaeology
and material accounts of past conditions, mostly to date.
related to the development of new means of Other questions appropriate to the unique capa-
production, accumulation , distribution and human bilities of historical archaelogy focus on under-
social organization . Slavery, imperialism, class standing general cultural phenomena that tran-
formation, cultural syncretism, the manifestation scend specific time and space. A classic example
of economic inequality among classes, consumer in which historical archaeology has taken a some-
choice behavior and accelerated environmental what slow lead has been in the study of accultur-
degradation are a few of the related topics that can ation. The obvious advantages of North American
be accurately described and understood only by a contact period sites for understanding acculturation
historical archaeological approach (that is, through and other kinds of contact-induced culture change
the use of written testimony in conjunction with have often been pointed out, and were, in fact, the
material by-products). Some work in the field is focus of some of the earliest historical archaeology
already turning successfully in this direction, such in a social science vein (Deetz 1963; 1965). This
as Lewis' studies of the process of colonial frontier early promise has not been fully realized, how-
expansion (1984); or Paynter's account of the ever, as recent attempts to synthesize archaeolog-
transformation of New England society from a ical contributions to contact issues have indicated
peripheral area to a core participant in the world (Fitzhugh 1985:9; McEwan and Mitchem 1984).
economy (1982). Other studies attempt to under- This failure has in part been due to the application
stand relationships between socio-economic and of methodologies developed for prehistoric archae-
market organizations by studying commodity ology that give relatively little consideration to the
flows, price indices and consumer choices through larger economic , technological, political and so-
both documentary and material evidence (Miller cial milieus of contact period sites. We have not,
1980; Wise 1983; Spencer-Wood 1987). One can for example, developed principles of interpretation
also conceive of archaeological studies along the that allow us to recognize "acculturation" in the
lines of Mintz's study of sugar (1985), tracing archaeological record, other than a vague idea that
material mechanisms by which economic and class the presence of European items on a non-Euro-
structures are reinforced and maintained. pean site (and vice-versa) reflects "accultura-
Many potentially fruitful questions in American tion."
historical archaeology are historical in a generic This underscores that fact that although we can
10 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 22
ask "questions that count", we cannot answer difference in both the questions we ask and in our
them without a methodology specific to historical methods for answering them (see Schuyler 1970,
archaeology. Certain elements of a methodology 1976; Leone 1977a). It is in some cases possible to
for the recovery, analysis and ordering of historical refer to our own experience to functionally and
archaeological data have been developed, most meaningfully interpret the material world (such as
notably those of South (1977); Noel Hume (1969) the case of a rosary, for example). It is possible
and Reitz and Scarry (1985). We have not devel- that our prehistoric archaeology heritage has
oped a methodology specifically designed to take slowed down the process of going beyond accepted
advantage of the multiple categories of evidence in methodologies to develop others-like South's-
historical archaeology, however, and this has cer- that are specifically appropriate to the concerns
tainly been a factor in the failure of the field to and capabilities of historical archaeology.
realize its full potential. Much of the best recent One area in which historical archaeology has
work on historical archaeological issues in the begun to realize its unique potentials is that of
modern world ultimately relies more heavily on basic research in archaeology, or the development
documentary, cartographic or geographical data of middle-range theory to link our observations of
than on archaeological data in its interpretations the archaeological record to a reasonable approxi-
(cf. Lewis 1984; Paynter 1982). mation of the past events that formed that record.
Cogent arguments were offered in the early The combined application of documentary and
years of the discipline's existence to both support material evidence has been successful in the devel-
and refute the proposition that historical archaeol- opment of principles for the archaeological recog-
ogy properly shares the methodology of prehistoric nition of normal stylistic evolution (Deetz and
archaeology, with the more or less simple addition Dethlefson 1967; South 1972; Cleland 1972); eco-
of documents (for a review and discussion of these nomic stress (Rathje 1977); residence patterns
arguments, see Cleland and Fitting 1968). The (Deetz 1965) and variability in economic status
view of methodological unity with prehistory has (Miller 1980; Otto 1984; Deagan 1983).
been highly appealing to the past and current There are many other concerns that could and
generation of archaeologists who have been trained should be considered in any discussion of the
overwhelmingly in anthropology departments that questions that count in historical archaeology.
traditionally concentrate on the study of prehistoric There is not, unfortunately , time to consider them
or non-Western people. Most of us received our in detail here. One particularly troublesome issue
methodological training in the context of prehis- is the potential importance of historical archaeol-
toric archaeology, and we learned to apply re- ogy in service to other fields of inquiry, such as the
search strategies and interpretive methods de- "handmaiden to history" role of documentary
signed to inform us about cultures in a pre-global supplementation and verification; or the "hand-
and pre-capitalistic world. The special domain of maiden to prehistoric archaeology" role of middle-
historical archaeology in the Americas, however, range theory development; or the "handmaiden to
that of the post-1500 world system, requires addi- preservation" role of recovering buried evidence
tional and sometimes different ways of organizing for structures and activities to be portrayed to the
research and interpreting the results. The classifi- public. All of these interests depend on historical
catory, typological and material origins concerns archaeology for access to the necessary data base.
of prehistoric archaeology, for example, are not Are these legitimate goals of our field, or ancillary
directly transferable to historical archaeology, service activities? These are very real concerns
since the intended form and function of much of that cannot be ignored, or in the spirit of scholarly
historic material culture is well documented, as is collaboration, rejected.
its origin, price, and market distribution. In conclusion, it seems evident that the ques-
The fact that we are, for the most part, studying tions that count in historical archaeology are those
our own society also makes-or should make-a which only our unique, multi-evidential approach
NEITHER HISTORY NOR PREHISTORY 11
can answer. These, for North American archaeol- 1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceram-
ogists, are grounded in the study of the complex, ics. University of Illinois Series in Anthropology #4.
1968 Late Man in North America: The Archeology of
post-1500 world system and the forms of human European Americans. In Anthropological Archeology
organization and interaction within it regardless of in the Americas , edited by B. Meggars, pp. 121-130 .
whether these problems have a traditional identifi- Anthropological Society of Washington.
cation as either "historical" or "scientific." In 1977 In Small Things Forgotten. Anchor-Doubleday, New
order to develop our potential to contribute in a York.
singular way to the study of the modern world, we DEETZ , JAMES AND EDWIN DETHLEFSEN
must identify and focus upon those issues that 1967 Deaths Head, Cherub, Urn and Willow. Natural
History 76(3):29-37 .
depend on simultaneous access to both written and
material evidence. We also have to develop our FITZHUGH, WILLIAM (ED)
1985 Cultures in Contact: The European Impact on Native
own specific methodologies to integrate and use Cultural Institutions in Eastern North America.
those categories of evidence. We are not histori- Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
ans, nor are we prehistorians, but we are rather a
FRANK, ANDRE GUNDER
modern discipline with our own specific focus that 1967 Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America.
can make otherwise unobtainable contributions to Monthly Review Press, New York.
the study of the modern world. HARRINGTON , J.e.
1955 Archeology as an Auxiliary Science to American
History. American Anthropologist 57(6):1121-30.