CHARLES E. ORSER JR.

Department of Sociology and AnthropologyIllinois State UniversityNormal, IL 61790

The Anthropology in American Historical Archaeology

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

The development of prehistoric archaeology as ananthropological pursuit has been detailed in severalimportant histories of the discipline, and its place

within anthropology is no longer seriously debated (e.g.,Patterson 1995; Stiebing 1993; Trigger 1989; Willey andSabloff 1974). In the United States, many researchers asso-ciated with the Bureau of American Ethnology had pressedthe cause of archaeology beginning in the last decades ofthe nineteenth century.

As an explicit, although widely debated, historical per-spective began to dominate anthropological practice in theearly twentieth century (Voget 1975:322-323), individualanthropologists engaged in considerable and protracteddiscussions on the proper use of history in anthropology(Harris 1968:275-277). The exact role of archaeology inthis debate was not always clear, at least partly because an-thropologically trained archaeologists themselves had yetto explicate the historical nature of their own pursuits.What they did understand, however, was that when they andtheir fellow anthropologists used the term archaeology,they were referring to prehistory. Thus, for example, whenKroeber (1948:4, 631) defined archaeology as "the scienceof what is old," he voiced the commonly held perceptionthat the subject matter of archaeology is literally prehis-tory, "history before written documents." Within this intel-lectual framework, anthropologists could imagine usingarchaeology to project the human story into the most inac-cessible corridors of time by providing material documen-tation for the ancient human condition. Even with this un-derstanding firmly pronounced, anthropologists usingprehistoric, archaeological information often felt com-pelled to defend its usage to their fellow social scientists(e.g., Wissler 1927:888-890). Historical archaeology did

not require similar justification because it did not exist dur-ing the formative years of American anthropology. In fact,historical archaeology in the United States was not a fullyrecognized member of the archaeological family until thelate 1960s. Even at this time, however, the precise relation-ship between historical archaeology and anthropology wasstill somewhat unclear.

A Brief History of Historical Archaeology

Historical archaeology has a somewhat ambiguousplace within the history of American archaeology (seePaynter 2000a, 2000b), and for most of its formative years,archaeologists—even those practicing historical archaeol-ogy—were unsure of precisely where their field fit, notonly within anthropology but even within archaeology it-self. As archaeologists initially trained as prehistorianssought to define the anthropological mission of historicalarchaeology—and to justify the field's existence even totheir archaeological colleagues—many of them felt like lit-tle more than "a junior varsity" (Little 1994:30), who wereoften openly ridiculed for their interest in "the unrespect-able in American archaeology" (Fontana 1968) and for us-ing what some referred to as "an expensive way of findingout what we know already" (Bradley 1987:293).

The problems faced by America's earliest historical ar-chaeologists were twofold. In the first place, historical ar-chaeology bore structural similarities to some Old Worldarchaeology in its use of textual information and in the in-vestigation of sites associated with men and women fromliterate cultures. Even at its inception, then, historical ar-chaeology shared the core of a research methodology withother, well-established archaeologists who routinely com-bined archaeological and "nonarchaeological" materials

American Anthropologist 103(3):621-632. Copyright © 2001, American Anthropological Association

622 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 103, No. 3 • SEPTEMBER 2001

(Andren 1998; Hogarth 1899). The duo-disciplinary meth-odology had an intellectual pedigree that stretched back atleast to the early nineteenth century and was associatedwith some of the world's most famous archaeologists(Flinders Petrie, Evans, Schliemann) and some of the mostspectacular and world-renowned ancient sites (Naukratis,Knossos, Troy) (but cf. Cotter 1994:15). That America'shistorical archaeologists would work in another place andwith a more recent time was not overly troubling becausethe methodology on the whole was sound. American his-torical archaeologists, therefore, could reasonably asserttheir link, at least methodologically, to some of the world'smost high-profile archaeology. Accordingly, Americanhistorical archaeologists could expect to find their intellec-tual niche in refining the ways in which historical materialscould be combined with or compared against archaeologi-cal materials.

When aligned with an Old World archaeology focusedon literate "civilizations," even if remotely, the importanttheoretical debates within historical archaeology wouldnecessarily revolve around how much historical researchwas necessary, required, or even tolerable for field studiesand whether a greater reliance on texts over artifacts meantthat the archaeologist was actually performing as a histo-rian (e.g., Finley 1971). Anthropology's precise role in allthis was unclear, and the question of whether historical ar-chaeology was history or anthropology would bedevil his-torical archaeology for years and cause many historical ar-chaeologists trained as anthropologists—and personallycommitted to the discipline—to question their relationshipto prehistoric archaeology (Deagan 1988; Orser 1996:10-11). The resultant "crisis of identity" (Cleland and Fit-ting 1968; Walker 1970), and questions over the role of"history" in their research, meant that many historical ar-chaeologists no longer felt totally secure in their self-iden-tification as anthropologists. For example, pioneering his-torical archaeologist John Cotter (1967:15) could notdecide whether to refer to a fellow historical archaeologistas an "anthropologist-turned historical sites archaeologistor [as a] historian-Americanist-turned archaeologist." Oneproblem, of course, was that Old World archaeology fo-cused on "civilization"—arguably historical archaeology'sclosest intellectual cousin—had never been conceived asan anthropological pursuit, even though one branch of it,classical archaeology, had played a prominent role in theearliest years of American archaeology (Dyson1989:127-128) as well as archaeology elsewhere (e.g., Fu-nari 1997). In accordance with the confusion that accom-panied Cotter's disciplinary terminology, what Americanarchaeologists today know as "historical archaeol-ogy"—the archaeology of the post-Columbian era—wasthen known by several other names, including historic sitearchaeology (Harrington 1952,1994), historic archaeology(Harrington 1952; Setzler 1943; Walker 1967), colonial ar-

chaeology (Setzler 1943), and historic sites archaeology(Fontana 1965; Mattes 1960; also see Pilling 1967).

While American historical archaeologists could findsome measure of methodological affinity between them-selves and many Old World archaeologists, they had no re-course to sites that could be promoted as "meaningful" inthe same way as Pompeii, Herculaneum, or Nineveh. Putanother way, historical archaeologists realized, perhapssubconsciously, that to bring their field the notice it de-served, they would need a "heroic age" that would mimicthat of other "high civilization" archaeologies (Stiebing1993:23). Like these other "historical" archaeologists,American archaeologists could use the heroic age to buildthe intellectual foundation of their field and to create its ra-tionale.

Where would historical archaeologists find this heroicage in the United States? Though one could easily arguethat the most heroic men and women of the past had beenthe hundreds of thousands of laborers who had struggled tobuild the nation, America's archaeologists, as members ofan intellectual elite, were drawn to the homes and proper-ties of the nation's historic, almost mythic, elites (Orserand Fagan 1995:25-29).

Happily for American historical archaeologists, theUnited States government interceded with the passage ofthe Historic Sites Act of 1935. The framers of this act ex-plicitly linked "historic and archaeological sites" and "his-toric or prehistoric sites" and mandated the examination of"sites, buildings, and objects" that could be deemed to"possess exceptional value as commemorating or illustrat-ing the history of the United States" (King et al. 1977:202).Historic sites were thus legislatively correlated with pre-historic sites, and each place was given equal legal weight.As a result, the act not only provided employment for pio-neering U.S. historical archaeologists, it also created a wayfor them to construct a "heroic age" around famous sites inAmerican history. Though much of the research initiallyconducted under the 1935 act was purely architectural indesign and scope (Harrington 1994:6), it nonetheless pro-vided a significant entry point for historical archaeologyinto American archaeology.

At the same time that the federal government was in-volved in promoting sites and properties judged to be sig-nificant within American history, capitalist entrepreneurswere also employing their own brand of historical archae-ology, what Harrington (1952:341) has referred to as "res-toration archaeology." In Dearborn, Michigan, Henry Fordused a primitive historical archaeology to aid in construct-ing his Greenfield Village, an idyllic town meant to portrayan America his automobiles were helping to destroy (Up-ward 1979), and in Williamsburg, Virginia, John D.Rockefeller Jr. was helping to fund excavations that wouldguide the reconstruction and renovation of one of America'spremier colonial towns (Yetter 1988). These elites usedhistorical archaeology to create memories of the nation—and

ORSER / ANTHROPOLOGY IN AMERICAN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 623

themselves—that would last as long as the sites themselves(Patterson 1995:59-60; Schuyler 1976; also see Shackel2000).

The historical archaeologists of this time generally madeno attempt to promote an anthropological connection tothis primarily architectural work, even though Harrington(1955), the excavator of Jamestown, had a paper publishedin American Anthropologist. Harrington proposed in theessay that historical archaeology's greatest contributionwas to the study of History, and that the future relationshipof historical archaeology to anthropology, and even to so-cial science in general, was debatable. Looking back on hiscareer more than twenty years later, he did not believe thesituation had improved much, and he reiterated his opinionthat little progress had been made in formulating an anthro-pological historical archaeology (Harrington 1994:14).

The confusion and controversy expressed during histori-cal archaeology's earliest years indicated that America'shistorical archaeologists had major problems when it cameto relating to their fellow anthropologists, even thoughmost of them had been trained as prehistorians (see South1994). Without being encumbered by the onus of textual"history," America's prehistorians discovered that theycould find their anthropological niche in the codification oflarge-scale classification schemes and the concomitantconstruction of large-scale regional chronologies (Lymanet al. 1997; McKern 1939; Willey and Phillips 1958). Justas Engels (1972:72) had realized that Morgan's researchcould help to reconstruct the "prehistoric basis of our writ-ten history," so, too, did prehistorians discover their an-thropological relevance. The problem was that a full-scalecommitment to the creation of prehistoric cultural chro-nologies within the anthropological sphere left no rele-vance for historical archaeology. As archaeology was be-ing cast at the midpoint of the twentieth century, thepurview of the prehistorian was literally construed as thestudy of prehistory, the time before the presence of writtenlanguage. With time demarcated in this manner, historianswould study "history." The historical archaeologists whoinvestigated sites and properties covered under the aus-pices of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 were thus actuallyperforming as historians. Historical archaeologists digginginto archival collections uncovered written records thathad the same intellectual weight as the artifacts they dis-covered from beneath the earth. When the history of twen-tieth-century American archaeology was divided into twobroad categories—the descriptive-historic period and thecomparative-historic period (Willey 1968:40-53)—his-torical archaeology simply had no anthropological role.

America's historical archaeologists, however, weredeeply concerned about their inability to capture a placewithin anthropology, their disciplinary training ground.For example, Charles Fairbanks (1994:204-205), who hadstudied with Redfield and Radcliffe-Brown, was especially

committed to building an anthropologically based histori-cal archaeology. As proof, Fairbanks constructed a consci-entious anthropological foundation under both plantationarchaeology and the archaeology of colonial SpanishAmerica in the Southeast (Fairbanks 1983, 1984). Fair-banks' early plantation research, for instance, situated himsquarely in the middle of the anthropological debate be-tween Frazier (1964) and Herskovits (1958) over the per-sistence of African cultural characteristics in the NewWorld. Fairbanks made a lasting case for the tenacity ofculture—even in the face of the barbarity of the MiddlePassage—in his search for material "Africanisms" at ante-bellum plantation sites (Orser 1994:34-35). Since Fair-banks's initial research on the nature of violently trans-planted African cultures in the Americas, historicalarchaeologists have moved the examination of slavery andAfrican American culture steadily into such firmly anthro-pological topics as acculturation (e.g., Wheaton and Gar-row 1985), creolization (e.g., Dawdy 2000; Ferguson1992), race (e.g., Mullins 1999; Orser 1998), the social useof space (e.g., Delle 1998, 2000), and magic and religion(e.g., Leone and Fry 1999; Orser 1994; Wilkie 1997).

The Further Anthropologization ofHistorical Archaeology

While diverse anthropologists argued for a greater unionof anthropology and history—and thereby implicitly madea case for the anthropological relevance of historical ar-chaeology (e.g., Evans-Pritchard 1962; Mead 1951)—itwas actually the development of the New Archaeology inthe 1960s that gave historical archaeology its firmest an-thropological standing. Binford (1968, 1972) formulatedprocessual archaeology partly by grounding it in Taylor's(1948:41) idea that anthropological research could be tem-porally unbounded, and that it could include "18th centuryEngland, Blackfoot Indians, or an industrial community inIndiana"—all, by the way, legitimate subjects for historicalarchaeology. Within the emergent Taylor/Binford frame-work, the parameters of the history/prehistory divide be-came irrelevant as culture process took precedence overtemporal affiliation. Binford's open-minded perspectivewas undoubtedly both theoretical and personal because hehad obtained direct experience with historical archaeologyas a graduate student at Fort Michilimackinac, Michigan(Maxwell and Binford 1961; also see Binford 1977). Bin-ford's "revolutionary" efforts to create a nomothetic ar-chaeology were eagerly adopted in historical archaeology,largely because the apparent temporal restrictions had beenremoved from the practice of anthropological archaeology.The historical archaeologist's role as historian could bedownplayed in favor of a newly justifiable role as anthro-pologist. Once again, however, the United States govern-ment had a timely role to play in forcing the practical ac-ceptance of historical archaeology. With the implementation

624 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 103, No. 3 • SEPTEMBER 2001

of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR Part 60 in 1976, government officials agreed that sitesand properties over fifty years old were eligible to be listedon the National Register of Historic Places (Hardesty andLittle 2000:43-44; King et al. 1977:223). As of 1976, then,historical archaeologists—examining sites occupied as re-cently as 1926—found their research mandated by federallegislation designed to defend, protect, and investigate his-toric-period archaeological sites that could be judged to be"significant" within the legislative guidelines.

Even before the federal mandate, however, some his-torical archaeologists had actively promoted the use ofovert anthropological perspectives in the field. For exam-ple, James Deetz (1965, 1968a) was an early advocate ofanthropological historical archaeology through his pio-neering research on Ankara residence rules. Though someconsider this work to fall within the often-murky purviewof "protohistory" (e.g., Willey 1968:52), Deetz (1968b,1988, 1996) became one of America's premier historicalarchaeologists and a persistent proponent of an overt an-thropological historical archaeology. Stanley South(1977), another influential proponent of anthropologicalhistorical archaeology, worked toward the construction ofan explicitly scientific historical archaeology rooted in anunambiguous cultural evolutionism (South 1955). Southleaned heavily on the works of White and Malinowski increating his eclectic brand of nomothetic historical archae-ology (Orser 1989:28-33), and his approach forever dem-onstrated the close connections between historical archae-ology and anthropology.

South's formulation was immensely important to thematuration of historical archaeology because he made astrong case for the inclusion of the field into mainstreamanthropological archaeology. To make the transition wa-tertight, however, South proposed that, except for its "database," historical archaeology was "not a different kind ofarchaeology from any other" (1977:2). In other words, his-torical archaeologists were simply archaeologists whostudied the relatively recent, as opposed to the ancient,past. His position harkened back to Taylor's view that "thearchaeologist, as archaeologist, is really nothing but a tech-nician" (1948:43). But, where Taylor (1948:44) had pro-posed that archaeology was neither history nor anthropol-ogy—but an autonomous discipline in its own right—South (1977:12) situated historical archaeology firmlywithin anthropology and effectively removed it from anyreal association with classical archaeology. Without ques-tion, his unmistakable insistence on the creation of an an-thropologically informed historical archaeology was de-signed to counter the voices of other prominent historicalarchaeologists who not only denied anthropology any rolein the field whatsoever (e.g., Noel Hume 1972:12—13;Walker 1967) but also openly ridiculed the nomotheticgoals of the New Archaeology (Walker 1974). These anti-anthropology historical archaeologists took English jurist

F. W. Maitland's advice seriously that "an archaeologythat is not history is somewhat less than nothing" (Hazelt-ine et al. 1936:242). Significantly, the most vocal oppo-nents to an anthropological historical archaeology hadbeen trained in Great Britain, where "archaeology, whetherprehistoric or not, has always been regarded as an aspect ofhistory" (Walker 1967:29). Even today, an anthropologi-cally rooted historical archaeology has been slow to de-velop in Europe, even though the situation is in the processof changing (see, e.g., Frazer 1999; Orser 2000).

Is Historical Archaeology Unique?

From our vantage point at the beginning of the twenty-first century, we can say without qualification that histori-cal archaeology is now a recognized and generally ac-cepted kind of anthropological archaeology. We thus maywell imagine that historical archaeologists have exhaustedthe early epistemological crises that swirled around themeanings of history and the role of archaeology in terms ofthese many meanings. We may also suppose that the pre-cise relationship between historical and prehistoric archae-ology is no longer contested and that a consensus of placeexists among most anthropologically trained archaeolo-gists. After all, historical archaeology—in one form or an-other—has been conducted in the United States since theinitial decades of the twentieth century. Based on this his-tory, we would be justified in supposing that the most basiccontroversies of the field have all been resolved and thathistorical archaeologists have moved on to more substan-tive theoretical matters. The controversies of today are in-deed more complexly formulated than in the past, but itcontinues to be somewhat true that the emergence of his-torical archaeology "as a legitimate subfield in the con-sciousness of most American archaeologists is relativelyrecent" (Deagan 1982:151). The often-contentious natureof historical archaeology has not entirely disappeared, anda clear-cut agreement as to the mission and goals of thefield is still somewhat elusive. In fact, the controversies ofthe late 1960s (see South 1968) are still with us, resurfac-ing in a new guise as recently as the mid-1990s.

In 1994, Mark Leone and Parker Potter (1994) provideda synopsis of an advanced seminar they had organized theprevious year at the School of American Research (seeLeone and Potter 1999). The central theme of the seminarwas based on a growing realization among many historicalarchaeologists that they were uniquely positioned to inves-tigate the material and cultural manifestations of historicalcapitalism as it had been expressed around the world sincethe early 1500s (Leone and Potter 1999; also see Johnson1996; Leone 1995a; Little 1994; Orser 1987, 1988a,1988b, 1996; Paynter 1988, 2000a, 2000b). One point ofboth the symposium and Leone and Potter's short reportwas to promote the idea that the study of capitalism canserve to unite historical archaeologists in the common

ORSER / ANTHROPOLOGY IN AMERICAN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 625

purpose of understanding the intricacies of the capitalistproject, while at the same time providing a commonalityfor the investigation of the dimensions of capitalist resis-tance at localities across the globe, topics that have seriousanthropological relevance (e.g., Bodley 1990; Friedman1994; Patterson 1999; Robbins 1999). Leone and Pottersought to define a role for today's historical archaeologywithin the critique of globalization and modernization.

Leone and Potter's statement, and the growing realiza-tion among some historical archaeologists that their fieldwas unique within archaeology, was not truly new, as simi-lar sentiments had been expressed, albeit in different ways,during the debates of the formative years (e.g., South1968). Nonetheless, their summary reopened and reinvig-orated the discussion over the perspectives and goals ofhistorical archaeology and demonstrated that the most ba-sic, definitional issues of the field had never been satisfac-torily resolved (Becker 1995; Hackbarth 1995; Leone1995b; Moore 1995a, 1995b; Wesler 1996).

The opinions that Leone and Potter evoked about the"proper" study of historical archaeology were decidedlymore sophisticated than those of the 1960s. The point ofcontention was not the disciplinary heritage and academicplacement of historical archaeology (as either "anthropo-logical" or "historical"—historical archaeologists nowreadily accepted the fuzzy boundary between the two dis-ciplines) but whether historical archaeologists were correctto express the uniqueness of their field as the study of thematerial manifestations of capitalism. Historical archae-ologists who were opposed to the idea generally arguedthat foregrounding this primarily economic system createdartificial boundaries that were both disciplinarily and tem-porally based. In other words, a focus on capitalism wouldtend to separate historical archaeologists both from prehis-tory (creating an artificial temporal disjunction) and fromprehistorians (creating an artificial disciplinary demarca-tion) (e.g., Funari et al. 1999; Lightfoot 1995; Wesler1998). Prehistorians will discern that this debate is struc-turally analogous to the question of whether world systemstheory should be restricted to post-A.D. 1500 history(Wallerstein 1974, 1979, 1980) or whether the charac-teristics of world systems can be identified far earlier(Frank 1993; Frank and Gills 1993). Prehistorians have ar-gued both positions at length and have not been able to de-rive any sort of final resolution (e.g., Algaze 1993; Blantonand Feinman 1984; Blanton et al. 1992; Champion 1989;Chase-Dunn and Hall 1991; Edens 1992; Hall and Chase-Dunn 1983, 1994; King and Freer 1995; Kohl 1987; Pailesand Whitecotton 1979; Peregrine 1995; Peregrine andFeinman 1996; Rowlands et al. 1987; Sanderson 1995;Schortman and Urban 1987, 1992; Upham 1986). No easysolution similarly exists for the question of whether histori-cal archaeology is about capitalism, or whether, like all ar-

chaeology, it is simply situated within an everyday, capi-talist system.

Some Current Faces of Historical ArchaeologyThe dispute over capitalism illustrates that historical ar-

chaeology is still not a conceptually unified field of in-quiry. The more than thirty years that American historicalarchaeologists have been searching for a coherent perspec-tive suggests that the field never will be completely settled.Few historical archaeologists would demand any sort oftheoretical conformity—as this would seriously stifle intel-lectual growth—but many may find it disconcerting thatthe purpose of their field of inquiry is still contested. Oth-ers, however, may find the diversity stimulating andthought-provoking. As the situation currently stands at thebeginning of the twenty-first century, it seems that histori-cal archaeologists conceptualize their field in several ways.The most prevalent of these perspectives include: histori-cal archaeology as a critique of modern history, includingcapitalism, capitalist expressions, and resistance; historicalarchaeology as a trans-temporal study of broad culturaltrends and processes; and historical archaeology as a gen-erally particularistic (some would say "historical") study ofspecific places. In every case, today's most accomplishedhistorical archaeology loudly proclaims its anthropologicalheritage.

Archaeologists who tend to see historical archaeologyas a critical pursuit generally believe that it can have a dis-tinct impact on our understanding of the historical roots oftoday's world, including capitalism. This understanding islinked to a critically informed anthropology that seeks tobe active and engaged in the problems of today's world(Harrison 1997; Hymes 1974). While some archaeologistsmay simply choose to characterize this research as "politi-cal," and thereby summarily dismiss it (e.g., Washburn1987), historical archaeology constructed in this mannerseeks to make the past relevant to the present. The targetaudience is not only other scholars but also descendantcommunities and nonarchaeologists (e.g., McDavid andBabson 1997; Potter 1994). This kind of historical archae-ology—variously termed "modern-world archaeology"(Orser 1999:280-282) and "critical archaeology" (Leoneet al. 1987)—shares with many anthropologists an interestin modernization and dependency, globalization, massconsumerism, colonialism, and cultural survival and resis-tance.

Historical archaeologists who tend to reject the perspec-tive of a critical historical archaeology, but yet who readilyaccept the premise of anthropological historical archaeol-ogy, often seek to use archaeology to document the trans-temporal features and characteristics of complex societies.Using a mostly comparative framework to investigate suchtopics as urbanism (Mrozowski 1988) and the extent andnature of large-scale trading networks prior to A.D. 1500

626 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 103, No. 3 • SEPTEMBER 2001

(Funari 1999), these historical archaeologists tend to giveprecedence to cross-cultural similarities between complexsocieties and downplay the temporal differences betweenthem. In many cases, these archaeological studies of broadcultural trends over vast periods of time share with criticalarchaeology an overt interest in dominated and intention-ally ignored peoples who have had their history appropri-ated by others (e.g., Mangut 1998; Parker Pearson et al.1999).

Another face of today's historical archaeology involvesthe study of particular places for specific purposes, such asfor the completion of cultural resource management re-ports. American historical archaeology is heavily commit-ted to contract research, and as of 1998, only 29 percent ofhistorical archaeologists were engaged in some amount ofteaching (DeCorse 2000:14).1 Based on the survey, it isreasonable to state that most American historical archaeol-ogy is conducted in an applied environment. Much of theresearch completed within the parameters of sponsored re-search often appears to have little direct relevance to an an-thropologically informed archaeology because the re-searchers are often contractually engaged to demonstratethe historical significance of a building, site, or propertywithin the established federal guidelines, or are simply em-powered to conduct surveys of tightly delimited areas.Even with such constraints, however, cultural resourcemanagers often do complete sophisticated examples of an-thropological research, using as part of their explanatoryframeworks such concepts as urbanization, ethnic bound-ary maintenance, and social networks (e.g., Mcllroy andPraetzellis 1997; Praetzellis et al. 1997; Ziesing 1998).

One of the exciting elements of today's anthropologi-cally informed historical archaeology is that these three"groups"—those who study capitalism, those interested intrans-temporal processes, and those engaged in applied re-search—are loose at best. They are neither mutually exclu-sive nor do they constitute all possible emphases of re-search in historical archaeology. Other commentators maydispute their very existence, choosing to argue that thefield is differently organized or not organized at all. Ratherthan being troubling, these differences of opinion merelyreflect the vitality of the field and the richness of interpre-tations that are possible within it.

Examples in Historical Archaeology

The diverse character of today's historical archaeologymeans that the field is contentious and alive. Historical ar-chaeologists espouse a variety of theoretical viewpointsand conduct research on a huge number of topics, and indi-vidual historical archaeologists see themselves as engagedin various segments of the larger anthropological project.Given the breadth of research now being conductedthroughout the world, no single volume, no matter howlarge, could ever hope to portray the true variation within

the field. Instead, the best we can hope for is to present anindication of current efforts in historical archaeology with-out any goal of total inclusivity. The five articles that fol-low are intended to demonstrate some of the research thatis now being conducted by anthropological historical ar-chaeologists in the United States.

In Bonnie McEwan's article, we confront a familiartheme in historical archaeology. In fact, the examination ofcolonization and cultural transformation was one of theearliest topics pursued by historical archaeologists, manyof whom first found their anthropological relevance in thestudy of fur trade posts and other frontier sites where menand women from vastly different cultures met and inter-acted. Whereas much of the investigation in the past wouldhave revolved around the material identification of accul-turation and focused on issues of how acculturation couldbe "measured" in artifact frequencies, McEwan shows usthe true complexities of culture contact. Her lens is throughreligion, one area of research in historical archaeology thatis quickly becoming prominent. She argues that intercultu-ral contact incorporates more than just political changesand shows how Spanish missionaries in Florida zealouslypressed the cause of Christianity on the indigenous NativeAmericans, in a process that was repeated throughout theglobe. Relying on a solid staple of much archaeological re-search, McEwan examines mortuary patterns at severalmission sites in an effort to gain insights into religious con-version and the interplay of social variables in those con-versions. Using one particular strength of modern-day his-torical archaeology, McEwan links past and present bynoting how the Talimali Band of Apalachee are still prac-ticing Roman Catholics, information that aptly demon-strates the power of religious conservativism overtime.

Paul Shackel takes a completely different tack thanMcEwan and examines how history is constructed andhow memory is produced. Issues such as these have sel-dom been overtly explored in American historical archae-ology, even though much of the field's history is associatedspecifically with the production of memory at sites consid-ered to have historic, national importance. Confrontingsuch complicated issues as the creation of exclusionaryhistory, the role of patriotism in the production of memory,and the application of symbols at historic landscapes andmonuments, Shackel illustrates the tacit power historicalarchaeologists—and in fact all archaeologists—have attheir discretion when they construct images of the past.These images become frozen in time when they constitutethe basis for physical reconstruction, a topic of special sig-nificance for historical archaeology. Shackel's effort isalso instructive because historical archaeologists often findthemselves attempting to justify that they are "doing" his-torical archaeology when they are not excavating. Manyarchaeologists tend to equate archaeology strictly with ex-cavation, and an individual who is not a "dirt archaeolo-gist" is often not considered to be an archaeologist at all.

ORSER / ANTHROPOLOGY IN AMERICAN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 627

Historical archaeologists are sensitive to this criticism be-cause their vast resource base includes so much that isabove ground. Most historical archaeologists adopt an ex-tremely liberal view of what constitutes "real" archaeol-ogy, and Shackel's study of public memory certainlyqualifies.

Adrian and Mary Praetzellis take us in yet another direc-tion with their study in California. As proponents of"contextual archaeology"—an innovative approach thatincorporates creative storytelling—they view historical ar-chaeology as a humanistic field that has its greatest chanceof interpretive success in the ability of archaeologists to"play" with the data. The goal of this approach is to pro-vide an animated, interesting picture of how real men andwomen once lived in the world. Rather than focusing onwhole cultures or even on social groups as homogeneouswholes, they seek to personalize the people they study andin the process strive to understand how these men andwomen used their material culture for their own, complexends. Here, Praetzellis and Praetzellis investigate the gen-tility of Victorian culture. Subjects of the British Empireexpressed gentility as normative behavior across the globe,and Praetzellis and Praetzellis individualize the enactmentof this behavior at four unique places. In the process theyconfront an important issue in today's historical archaeol-ogy concerning the scale of analysis. Some historical ar-chaeologists prefer large-scale analyses, while others seetheir greatest abilities to excel, as do Praetzellis andPraetzellis, at a far smaller scale. Still others promote amultiscalar analysis that tacks back and forth betweenmany scales. The verdict is still out among historical ar-chaeologists as to what scale is most appropriate for par-ticular analyses and whether one particular scale is actuallybest for historical archaeology. One of the strengths of to-day's diverse historical archaeology is that no one needs todecide on only one scale of inquiry. Praetzellis andPraetzellis forcefully demonstrate this fact in their power-ful, personalized interpretation.

In Elizabeth Scott's contribution we encounter a promi-nent feature of much historical archaeology, the analysis offaunal remains. Focusing on a sugar plantation in Louisi-ana, Scott investigates the correlation between the cross-cutting social variables of plantation power relations, eth-nicity, and class affiliation, and argues, through an analysisof the excavated faunal remains, that the social variablesenacted on the plantation worked in complex ways to af-fect diet. Scott calls into question some of today's stereo-types about the association of certain foods with specificethnic groups and proposes that broad generalizations can-not be made from her data to all plantations. Historical ar-chaeologists have wondered since the inception of planta-tion archaeology whether and on what scale plantationcomparisons could be made, and many have devisedcleaver dichotomies for investigation of the slave regime:

antebellum:postbellum, upland:coastal, sugarxotton, cot-ton:rice, and Old South frontier South. Such broad com-parisons can be said conceptually to mirror the culturehistorian's creation of prehistoric, regional cultural chro-nologies in that they seek to present totalizing structures ofinterpretation across and within huge regions. Scott argues,on the contrary, that it is even problematic to compare thefaunal data from her site to other plantations in the samestate. Part of the difficulty is undoubtedly practical in thatthe data base, though growing larger every year, is stillrelatively small. Even so, the possible uniqueness of everyplantation—including the spatial landscapes, power rela-tions, social structures, and community organizations—is atopic that plantation archaeologists will likely confront infuture studies.

The final article, by Amy Young, Michael Tuma, andCliff Jenkins, finds us on another plantation site, this one inMississippi. Showing the richness of interpretive possibili-ties, Young et al. take a different tack than Scott, eventhough they also use faunal information. They focus on thenotion of purposeful risk management by African Ameri-can slaves, enacted within a social environment that em-phasizes family and community. Young et al. illustratehow slaves used hunting strategies as a means of regainingsome degree of control within a socially repressive settingin which they were not intended to have control. The issueof slave control has been a contentious issue in historicalarchaeology, because to downplay the slaves' power tocreate culture fashions them into mere automatons,whereas to give them substantial power lessens the repres-sive, inhuman nature of human bondage. The examinationand interpretation of the control slaves had over their ownlives, no matter on what level it was achieved, demon-strates just one area in which historical archaeology canhave a major impact on anthropological thought. The con-cept of risk management provides one intriguing avenue ofinquiry, to be sure.

In the articles that follow, we see a focus on both largeand small issues and five examples of interpretation andanalysis. We move around in time and place and obtain in-sights into various aspects of the American past. Some ofthe information presented was gathered within a contractarchaeology environment, while other information wasgenerated by pure research curiosity. Some of the archae-ologists are interested in capitalism, and others are moreconcerned with investigating the basic issues of the humancondition. But throughout, we see the diversity of ap-proach, the vitality of interpretation, and the exciting po-tential of an anthropologically informed historical archae-ology.

NoteAcknowledgments. I would like to thank Robert Sussman

for his interest in historical archaeology and the individual

628 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 103, No. 3 • SEPTEMBER 2001

authors for their willingness to contribute to this collection.Their hard work and dedication to the profession is obvious. Ialso wish to acknowledge Robert Paynter for his useful com-ments and assistance, and I would like to thank the anony-mous reviewers for helping me to refine and rethink portionsof my argument.

1. Even the figure of 29 percent is too high because the re-spondent category in the survey included "full-time college/university jobs, joint-appointments, adjunct teaching at col-leges and universities, and primary and secondary school em-ployees" (DeCorse 2000:14). Of the 804 Society for HistoricalArchaeology members who responded to the survey, fully 71percent stated that they had completed a cultural resourcemanagement report within the past five years (1993-98).

References Cited

Algaze, G.1993 The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion

of Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Andren, A.1998 Between Artifacts and Texts: Historical Archaeology in

Global Perspective. New York: Plenum.Becker, M. J.

1995 Letter to the Editor. Bulletin of the Society for AmericanArchaeology 13(2):6.

Binford, L. R.1968 Some Comments on Historical versus Processual Ar-

chaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24:267-275.

1972 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysisin Historical Archaeology: A Step Toward the Developmentof Archaeological Science. The Conference on Historic SiteArchaeology Papers 6:117-126.

1977 Historical Archaeology: Is It Historical or Archaeologi-cal? In Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Mate-rial Things. L. Ferguson, ed. Pp. 13-22. Tucson: Society forHistorical Archaeology.

Blanton, R. E., and G. Feinman1984 The Mesoamerican World System. American Anthro-

pologist 86:673-682.Blanton, R., S. Kowalewski, and G. Feinman

1992 The Mesoamerican World-System. Review 15:419-426.

Bodley, J. H.1990 Victims of Progress. 3rd edition. Mountain View, CA:

Mayfield.Bradley, R.

1987 Comment on 'Toward a Critical Archaeology" by M. P.Leone, P. B. Potter Jr., and P. A. Shackel. Current Anthropol-ogy 28:293.

Champion, T. C , ed.1989 Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archae-

ology. London: Unwin Hyman.Chase-Dunn, C , and T. D. Hall, eds.

1991 Core-Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds. Boul-der: Westview Press.

Cleland, C. E., and J. E. Fitting1968 The Crisis of Identity: Theory in Historic Sites Archae-

ology. Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 2(2):124-138.

Cotter, J. L.1967 Progress on a Chapbook and Bibliography for Historical

Sites Archaeology. Conference on Historical Site Archaeol-ogy Papers 1:15-18.

1994 Beginnings. In Pioneers in Historical Archaeology:Breaking New Ground. S. South, ed. Pp. 15-25. New York:Plenum.

Dawdy, S.L.,ed.2000 Creolization. Historical Archaeology 34(3): 1 -133.

Deagan, K. A.1982 Avenues of Inquiry in Historical Archaeology. In Ad-

vances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 5. M. B.Schiffer, ed. Pp. 151-177. New York: Academic Press.

1988 Neither History nor Prehistory. The Questions thatCount in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology22(1):7-12.

DeCorse, C. R.2000 Results of the 1998 SHA Membership Survey. Society

for Historical Archaeology Newsletter 33( 1): 13-14.Deetz, J.

1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Ankara Ceramics.Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

1968a The Inference of Residence and Descent Rules fromArchaeological Data. In New Perspectives in Archaeology. S.R. Binford and L. R. Binford, eds. Pp. 41^8. Chicago: Ald-ine.

1968b Late Man in North America: Archaeology of EuropeanAmericans. In Anthropological Archaeology in the Ameri-cas. B. J. Meggers, ed. Pp. 121-130. Washington, DC: An-thropological Society of Washington.

1988 American Historical Archaeology: Methods and Re-sults. Science 239:362-367.

1996 In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of EarlyAmerican Life. Revised edition. New York: Doubleday.

Delle, J. A.1998 An Archaeology of Social Space: Analyzing Coffee

Plantations in Jamaica's Blue Mountains. New York: Ple-num.

2000 Gender, Power, and Space: Negotiating Social Relationsunder Slavery on Coffee Plantations in Jamaica, 1790-1834.In Lines and Divide: Historical Archaeology of Race, Class,and Gender. J. A. Delle, S. A. Mrozowski, and R. Paynter, eds.Pp. 168-201. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Dyson, S. L.1989 The Role of Ideology and Institutions in Shaping Classi-

cal Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.In Tracing Archaeology's Past: The Historiography of Ar-chaeology. A. L. Christenson, ed. Pp. 127-135. Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press.

Edens, C.1992 Dynamics of Trade in the Ancient Mesopotamian

"World System." American Anthropologist 94:118-139.Engels, F.

1972 The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State,in the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan. E. B. Lea-cock, ed. New York: International.

ORSER / ANTHROPOLOGY IN AMERICAN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 629

Evans-Pritchard, E. E.1962 Social Anthropology and Other Essays. New York: Free

Press.Fairbanks, C. H.

1983 Historical Archaeology Implications of Recent Investi-gations. Geoscience and Man 23:17-26.

1984 The Plantation Archaeology of the Southeastern Coast.Historical Archaeology 18(1): 1-14.

1994 Path to Prelude: "What Is Past Is Prelude; Study thePast." In Pioneers in Historical Archaeology: Breaking NewGround. S. South, ed. Pp. 197-217. New York: Plenum.

Ferguson, L. G.1992 Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early African

America, 1650-1800. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institu-tion Press.

Finley, M. I.1971 Archaeology and History. Daedalus 100(1): 168-186.

Fontana, B. L.1965 On the Meaning of Historic Sites Archaeology. Ameri-

can Antiquity 31:61-65.1968 Bottles, Buckets, and Horseshoes: The Unrespectable in

American Archaeology. Keystone Folklore Quarterly (fall):171-184.

Frank, A. G.1993 Bronze Age World System Cycles. Current Anthropol-

ogy 34:383-429.Frank, A. G., and B. K. Gills, eds.

1993 The World-System: Five Hundred Years or Five Thou-sand? London: Routledge.

Frazer, B.1999 Reconceptualizing Resistance in the Historical Archae-

ology of the British Isles: An Editorial. International Journalof Historical Archaeology 3:1-10.

Frazier, E. F.1964 The Negro Church in America. New York: Schocken.

Friedman, J.1994 Cultural Identity and Global Process. London: Sage.

Funari, P. P. A.1997 European Archaeology and Two Brazilian Offspring:

Classical Archaeology and Art History. Journal of EuropeanArchaeology 5:137-148.

1999 Historical Archaeology from a World Perspective. InHistorical Archaeology: Back from the Edge. P. P. A. Funari,M. Hall, and S. Jones, eds. Pp. 37-66. London: Routledge.

Funari, P. P. A., S. Jones, and M. Hall1999 Introduction: Archaeology in History. In Historical Ar-

chaeology: Back from the Edge. P. P. A. Funari, M. Hall, andS. Jones, eds. Pp. 1-20. London: Routledge.

Hackbarth, M.1995 Letter to the Editor. Bulletin of the Society for American

Archaeology 13(2):6-7.Hall, T. D., and C. Chase-Dunn

1983 The World-Systems Perspective and Archaeology: For-ward into the Past. Journal of Archaeological Research1:121-143.

1994 Forward in the Past: World-Systems before 1500. Socio-logical Forum 9:295-306.

Hardesty, D. L., and B. J. Little2000 Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists

and Historians. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Harrington, J. C.

1952 Historic Site Archaeology in the United States. In Ar-chaeology of Eastern United States. J. B. Griffin, ed. Pp.335-344. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1955 Archaeology as an Auxiliary Science to American His-tory. American Anthropologist 57:1121-1130.

1994 From Architraves to Artifacts: A Metamorphosis. InPioneers in Historical Archaeology: Breaking New Ground.S. South, ed. Pp. 1-14. New York: Plenum.

Harris, M.1968 The Rise of Anthropology Theory: A History of Theo-

ries of Culture. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Harrison, F. V., ed.

1997 Decolonizing Anthropology: Moving Further Towardan Anthropology for Liberation. 2nd edition. Washington,DC: American Anthropological Association.

Hazeltine, H. D., G. Lapsley, and P. H. Winfield, eds.1936 Maitland: Selected Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Herskovits, M. J.

1958 The Myth of the Negro Past. Boston: Beacon.Hogarth, D. G.

1899 Prefatory. In Authority and Archaeology, Sacred andProfane: Essays on the Relation of Monuments to Biblical andClassical Literature. D. G. Hogarth, ed. Pp. v-xiv. London:John Murray.

Hymes, D.1974 Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Vintage.

Johnson, M.1996 An Archaeology of Capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell.

King, A., and J. A. Freer1995 The Mississippian Southeast: A World-Systems Per-

spective. In Native American Interactions: MultiscalarAnalyses and Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands. M. S.Nassaney and K. E. Sassaman, eds. Pp. 266-288. Knoxville:University of Tennessee Press.

King, T. F., P. P. Hickman, and G. Berg1977 Anthropology in Historic Preservation: Caring for Cul-

ture's Clutter. New York: Academic Press.Kohl, P. L.

1987 The Use and Abuse of World Systems Theory: The Caseof the Pristine West Asian State. In Advances in Archaeologi-cal Method and Theory, vol. 11. M. B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 1-35.San Diego: Academic Press.

Kroeber, A. L.1948 Anthropology. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Leone, M. P.1995a A Historical Archaeology of Capitalism. American

Anthropologist 97:251-268.1995b Letter to the Editor. Bulletin of the Society for Ameri-

can Archaeology 13(5):3.Leone, M. P., and G.-M. Fry

1999 Conjuring in the Big House Kitchen: An Interpretationof African American Belief Systems Based on the Uses of Ar-chaeology and Folklore Sources. Journal of American Folk-lore 112.372-403.

630 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 103, No. 3 • SEPTEMBER 2001

Leone, M. P., and P. B. Potter Jr.1994 Historical Archaeology of Capitalism. Bulletin of the

Society for American Archaeology 12(4): 14—15.Leone, M. P., and P. B. Potter Jr., eds.

1999 Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism. New York:Klu wer Academic/Plenum.

Leone, M. P., P. B. Potter Jr., and P. A. Shackel1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology

28:283-302.Lightfoot, K. G.

1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationshipbetween Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. AmericanAntiquity 60:199-217.

Little, B.J.1994 People with History: An Update on Historical Archaeol-

ogy in the United States. Journal of Archaeological Methodand Theory 1:5-40.

Lyman, R. L., M. J. O'Brien, and R. C. Dunnell1997 The Rise and Fall of Culture History. New York: Ple-

num.Mangut, J.

1998 An Archaeological Investigation of Ron AbandonedSettlements on the Jos Plateau: A Case of Historical Archaeol-ogy. In Historical Archaeology in Nigeria. K. W. Wesler, ed.Pp. 199_241. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.

Mattes, M. J.1960 Historic Sites Archaeology on the Upper Missouri. In

River Basin Survey Papers, Number 15. Smithsonian Institu-tion Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 176. F. H. H.Roberts, ed. Pp. 1-23. Washington, DC: Government Print-ing Office.

Maxwell, M. S., and L. R. Binford1961 Excavation at Fort Michilimackinac, Mackinac City,

Michigan, 1959 Season. East Lansing: The Museum, Michi-gan State University.

McDavid, C , and D. W. Babson, eds.1997 In the Realm of Politics: Prospects for Public Participa-

tion in African-American and Plantation Archaeology. His-torical Archaeology 31(3): 1-152.

Mcllroy, J., and M. Praetzellis, eds.1997 Vanished Community: 19th-century San Francisco

Neighborhoods, from Fourth Street to Mission Creek and Be-yond. Rohnert Park, CA: Anthropological Studies Center,Sonoma State University.

McKern, W. C.1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Ar-

chaeological Culture Study. American Antiquity 4:301-313.Mead, M.

1951 Anthropologist and Historian: Their Common Prob-lems. American Quarterly 3:3-13.

Moore, L. E.1995a Letter to the Editor. Bulletin of the Society for Ameri-

can Archaeology 13(1):3.1995b Letter to the Editor. Bulletin of the Society for Ameri-

can Archaeology 13(4):3—4Mrozowski, S. A.

1988 Historical Archaeology as Anthropology. Historical Ar-chaeology 22( 1): 18-24.

Mullins, P. R.1999 Race and Affluence: An Archaeology of African Amer-

ica and Consumer Culture. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Noel Hume, I.1972 Historical Archaeology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Orser, C. E., Jr.1987 Plantation Status and Consumer Choice: A Materialist

Framework for Historical Archaeology. In Consumer Choicein Historical Archaeology. S. M. Spencer-Wood, ed. Pp.121-137. New York: Plenum.

1988a The Material Basis of the Postbellum Tenant Planta-tion: Historical Archaeology in the South Carolina Piedmont.Athens: University of Georgia Press.

1988b Toward a Theory of Power for Historical Archaeology:Plantations and Space. In The Recovery of Meaning: Histori-cal Archaeology in the Eastern United States. M. P. Leone andP. B. Potter Jr., eds. Pp. 313-343. Washington, DC: Smith-sonian Institution Press.

1989 On Plantations and Patterns. Historical Archaeology

1994 The Archaeology of African-American Slave Religionin the Antebellum South. Cambridge Archaeological Journal4:33-45.

1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. NewYork: Plenum.

1998 The Challenge of Race to American Historical Archae-ology. American Anthropologist 100:661-668.

1999 Negotiating Our "Familiar Pasts." In The Familiar Past?Archaeologies of Later Historical Britain. S. Tarlow and S.West, eds. Pp. 273-285. London: Routledge.

2000 Why Is There No Archaeology in Irish Studies? IrishStudies Review 8:157-165.

Orser, C. E., Jr., and B. M. Fagan1995 Historical Archaeology. New York: HarperCollins.

Pailes, R. A., and J. W. Whitecotton1979 The Greater Southwest and the Mesoamerican "World"

System: An Explanatory Model of Frontier Relationships. InThe Frontier, vol. 2: Comparative Studies. W. W. Savage Jr.andS. I. Thompson, eds. Pp. 105-121. Norman: University ofOklahoma Press.

Parker Pearson, M., K. Godden, R. Retsihisatse, J.-L.Schwenninger, and H. Smith

1999 Lost Kingdoms: Oral Histories Travellers' Tales and Ar-chaeology in Southern Madagascar. In Historical Archaeol-ogy: Back from the Edge. P. P. A. Funari, M. Hall, and S.Jones, eds. Pp. 233-254. London: Routledge.

Patterson, T. C.1995 Toward a Social History of Archaeology in the United

States. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.1999 Change and Development in the Twentieth Century.

Berg: Oxford.Paynter, R.

1988 Steps to an Archaeology of Capitalism: Material Cultureand Class Analysis. In The Recovery of Meaning: HistoricalArchaeology in the Eastern United States. M. P. Leone and P.B. Potter Jr., eds. Pp. 407-433. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

2000a Historical and Anthropological Archaeology: ForgingAlliances. Journal of Archaeological Research 8:1-37.

ORSER / ANTHROPOLOGY IN AMERICAN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 631

2000b Historical Archaeology and the Post-ColumbianWorld of North America. Journal of Archaeological Research8:169-217.

Peregrine, P. N.1995 Networks of Power: The Mississippian World-System.

In Native American Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses andInterpretations in the Eastern Woodlands. M. S. Nassaney andK. E. Sassaman, eds. Pp. 245-265. Knoxville: University ofTennessee Press.

Peregrine, P. N., and G. M. Feinman, eds.1996 Pre-Columbian World Systems. Madison: Prehistory

Press.Pilling, A. R.

1967 Beginnings. Historical Archaeology 1:1-22.Potter, P. B., Jr.

1994 Public Archaeology in Annapolis: A Critical Approachto History in Maryland's Ancient City. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.

Praetzellis, M., S. B. Stewart, and G. H. Ziesing, eds.1997 The Los Vaqueros Watershed: A Working History.

Rohnert Park, CA: Anthropological Studies Center, SonomaState University.

Robbins, R. H.1999 Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.Rowlands, M., M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen, eds.

1987 Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Sanderson, S. K., ed.1995 Civilization and World-Systems: Two Approaches to

the Study of World-Historical Change. Walnut Creek, CA:AltaMira Press.

Schortman, E., and P. Urban1987 Modeling Interregional Interaction in Prehistory. In Ad-

vances in Archaeological Method and Theory, volume 11. M.B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 37-95. San Diego: Academic Press.

Schortman, E., and P. Urban, eds.1992 Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction. New

York: Plenum.Schuyler, R.

1976 Images of America: The Contribution of Historical Ar-chaeology to National Identity. Southwestern Lore 42(4):27-39.

Setzler, R.1943 Archaeological Explorations in the United States,

1930-1942. Acta Americana 1:206-220.Shackel, P. A.

2000 Archaeology and Created Memory: Public History in aNational Park. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

South, S.1954 Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology. Southern Indian

Studies 7:10-32.1968 Historical Archaeology Forum on Theory and Method

in Historical Archaeology. The Conference on Historic SiteArchaeology Papers 2(2): 1-188.

1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. NewYork: Academic Press.

South, S., ed.1994 Pioneers in Historical Archaeology: Breaking New

Ground. New York: Plenum.Stiebing,W.H.,Jr.

1993 Uncovering the Past: A History of Archaeology. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, W. W.1948 A Study of Archaeology. Memoir 69. American Anthro-

pologist 50:5-256.Trigger, B.G.

1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Upham, S.1986 Imperialists, Isolationists, World Systems, and Political

Realities: Perspectives on Mesoamerican-Southwestern In-teraction. In Ripples in the Chicimec Sea: New Considera-tions of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions. F. J.Mathien and R. H. McGuire, eds. Pp. 205-219. Carbondale-.Southern Illinois University Press.

Upward, G. C.1979 A Home for Our Heritage: The Building and Growth of

Greenfield Village and Henry Ford Museum, 1929-1979.Dearborn, MI: Henry Ford Museum Press.

Voget, F. W.1975 A History of Ethnology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and

Winston.Walker, I. C.

1967 Historic Archaeology: Methods and Principles. Histori-cal Archaeology 1:23-34.

1970 The Crisis of Identity: History and Anthropology. TheConference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 3:62-69.

1974 Binford, Science, and History: The Probabilistic Vari-ability of Explicated Epistemology and Nomothetic Para-digms in Historical Archaeology. The Conference on HistoricSite Archaeology Papers 7:159-201.

Wallerstein, I.1974 The Modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and

the Origins of the European World-Economy in the SixteenthCentury. New York: Academic Press.

1979 The Capitalist World-Economy. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

1980 The Modern World System II: Mercantilism and Con-solidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750.New York: Academic Press.

Washburn,W.E.1987 A Critical View of Critical Archaeology. Current An-

thropology 28:544-545.Wesler, K. W.

1996 Letter to the Editor. Bulletin of the Society for AmericanArchaeology 14(l):3-4.

1998 Historical Archaeology in West Africa. In Historical Ar-chaeology in Nigeria. K. W. Wesler, ed. Pp. 1-39. Trenton,NJ: Africa World Press.

Wheaton, T. R., and P. H. Garrow1985 Acculturation and the Archaeological Record in the

Carolina Lowcountry. In The Archaeology of Slavery andPlantation Life. T. A. Singleton, ed. Pp. 239-259. Orlando:Academic Press.

632 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 103, No. 3 • SEPTEMBER 2001

Wilkie,L.A.1997 Secret and Sacred: Contextualizing the Artifacts of Afri-

can American Magic and Religion. Historical Archaeology31(4):81-106.

Willey, G. R.1968 One Hundred Years of American Archaeology. In One

Hundred Years of Anthropology. J. O. Brew, ed. Pp. 29-53.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Willey, G.R., and P. Phillips1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press.Willey, G. R., and J. A. Sabloff

1974 A History of American Archaeology. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

Wissler, C.1927 The Culture-Area Concept in Social Anthropology.

American Journal of Sociology 32:881-891.Yetter, G. H.

1988 Williamsburg Before and After: The Rebirth of Vir-ginia's Colonial Capital. Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Wil-liamsburg Foundation.

Ziesing, G., ed.1998 The San Francisco Central Freeway Replacement Pro-

ject: Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan.Rohnert Park, CA: Anthropological Studies Center, SonomaState University.