Archaeological remains, documents, and anthropology: a call for a New culture history

Abstract

Historical archaeology is either a significant or superfluous endeavor, depending on the level one stands on to critique the discipline. If theoretical questions concerning the nature, dynamics and evolution of cultures are the starting point, or equally if more substantive but similarly broad questions of modern "world systems" are selected, then the results of a quarter century of excavations on historic sites are indeed weak and unconvincing. In contrast, a view grounded on "culture history" or " historic ethnography" finds historical archaeology to be potentially an impressive, productive field, equal in many ways to other data sources including written records. It is suggested that " historic ethnography," based equally on archaeology and written sources, is the future natural sphere for the archaeological investigations of the modern world (A.D. 1400-2Othcentury).

Globalizing Flowscapes and the Historical Archaeology of the Mormon Domain

“…Archaeological stories, he asserted, should focus upon social relationships rather than a fuzzy idea of culture. Critics of global perspectives cautiously asserted that archaeologists should focus upon creating "historic ethnographies" with their tremendous power to describe and analyze highly localized histories (Schuyler, 1988). Orser (1996, pp.…”

On the Use of Archaeology and History in Island Southeast Asia

“…While this subdiscipline has been subjected to varying de nitions and restrictions by its self identi ed practitioners (Andren 1998;Schuyler 1978), most historical archaeologists see themselves as archaeologists rst, who also use the texts written by and/or about the people whoÕs past they are studying. The subdiscipline of historical archaeology (which can be viewed as a mosaic of other more specialized traditions such as medieval archaeology, culture contact archaeology, colonial archaeology, etc.)…”

“…has also had internal divisions that mirror those in anthropological archaeology, such as between an emphasis on culture history and process, science, post modernism, etc. (M. Hall 2000; Kirch and Sahlins 1992;Knapp 1992; Leone and Potter 1988;Lightfoot 1995;Orser 1996;Rogers and Wilson 1993;Schuyler 1988;South 1977).…”

“…These in uences have been analyzed extensively in other publications, some with book length treatments, and I will not attempt to review them all here (Andren 1998;Beaudry, Cook, and Mrozowski 1991;Bintliff 1991;Boyd, Erwin, and Hendrickson 2000;Faubion 1993;Kepecs 1997;Kirch and Sahlins 1992;Leone and Potter 1988;Lightfoot 1995;Schuyler 1978;Schuyler 1988;Trigger 1989;Young 1988). Another topic of concern that I will not attempt to review closely is the role of oral history, tradition and myth in combination with archaeology (Kus 1997;McBride and Rudden 2000).…”

Material Culture and Indigenous Spiritism: the Katamansu Archaeological “Otutu” (Shrine)

“…The ensuing sections assess the historical backdrop and evidence of the battle and presents an analysis of the contents of the excavated shrine features (Otutui, plural) to reveal how local and exotic artifacts were revised, reused, and imbued with medicinal and spiritual properties in shrines (Field 1940). Ga historical and contemporary cultural or ethnographic practices were explored to integrate Ga spiritual folklores (Kilson 1971) and material philosophy in the interpretation of the archaeological shrine features (Baum 1999;Beaudry 1988;Schuyler 1988;Schmidt and Mrozowski 1983:146).…”