Glossary

Aqua-lung The original name for open-circuit diving equipment now known as SCUBA, developed in 1943. direct historical approach A methodological approach to correlating prehistoric archaeological sites and cultures with historically documented Native American cultures using a comparison of traits between late prehistoric archaeological sites

With the early historic period archaeological sites known to have been occupied by specific Native American peoples.

Native American A term used to describe some of the indigenous peoples of North America. new archaeology A school of archaeological thought that came into favor during the 1960s and that has as its hallmark the use of the scientific method of inquiry.

Georgian order A set of rules pertaining to architecture, material culture, behavior, and other components of culture dating from the eighteenth century, and characterized by an increase in the importance of symmetry and order.

The emergence of historical archaeology as a discipline can be attributed largely to developments in North America during the second half of the twentieth century. There, historical archaeology evolved from a base that was focused on archaeological research supporting restoration of pivotal nationalistic historic sites. Following World War II, emergence of the discipline was fueled by rapidly expanding national archaeology programs in the United States and Canada. By the end of the third quarter of the century, the discipline emerged, seeking to proclaim scholarly legitimacy and, within the United States and to a lesser degree in Canada, a place within anthropology. The maturation of the discipline in the decades that followed has increasingly been influenced by scholars residing in, and scholarship focused on, regions beyond North America. Historical archaeology today is increasingly informed by a global or world perspective (see Americas, North: Historical Archaeology in the United States).

In North America, prior to World War II, excavation of historic sites was not uncommonly conducted within a traditional archaeological or anthropological setting. Here the focus was on Native American sites of the early historic period, and the goal was to match these historically documented sites with those from prehistory based on similarities of archaeological traits - the presence and absence of house patterns, ceramics, and stone tool types. Significant discussions of this approach are found in William Duncan Strong’s Introduction to Nebraska Archaeology in 1935 and Waldo R. Wedel’s Introduction to Pawnee Archaeology in 1936; it was in a 1938 article by Wedel that the term ‘direct historical approach’ was first used. The type of inquiry represented by the ‘direct historical approach’, in part because it was concerned with Native American sites and was conducted by those interested first and foremost in questions of prehistory, was not perceived as intellectually comparable to other historic site excavations being conducted at the same time.

The ‘direct historical approach’, thought not generally perceived by most as being within the trajectory to a modern historical archaeology, recognized that archaeology in North America was a continuum that did not stop with the arrival of people with a literate tradition. Ironically, although the direct historical approach and the bridging of history and prehistory was a standard practice in archaeological research of the 1930s and 1940s, by the 1990s Kent Lightfoot was arguing that historical and prehistoric archaeology had become so rigidly separate that we needed to return to a focus on questions that bridged this incredibly significant point in the history of life in North America, and to collaborate with scholars on both sides of the line between prehistory and history. Not surprisingly, scholars working outside North America have confronted vastly different historical traditions and the dichotomy between prehistory and history takes on different meaning or becomes altogether irrelevant.

Also prior to World War II, major North American excavation projects at places such as Jamestown and Williamsburg, Virginia, brought focus to archaeology as a major player in an incipient heritage tourism industry focused on a nationalistic revival in the United States. The goal of these excavations was the recovery of architectural footprints and construction detail, recovery of museum specimens, and general verification or illustration of historical place and activity (see Tourism and Archaeology). During this era, and in some cases well into the third quarter of the twentieth century, it was historians and other nonarchaeologists who were making many decisions of what historic sites to excavate, and why. The perception developed during this era that excavation at historic sites was not clearly archaeological - whether it was anthropological or not was a concern that was still well beyond the horizon. This view of the incipient discipline of historical archaeology persisted well into the second half of the twentieth century and spread to areas such as Canada where a similarly ambitious program of revival of nationalistic historic sites developed, supported by excavation.

Archaeology as ‘handmaiden to history’ was the intellectual status quo for practitioners - pioneers in the creation historical archaeology as a discipline - who began to clamor in the 1950s and 1960s that excavation of historic sites should serve broader intellectual purposes than had come to be the norm. At this same time, due to the development of the aqua-lung, underwater archaeology was an emerging field of archaeological study that was fighting for recognition because of its potential contributions to historical scholarship rather than as the source of museum artifacts or treasure. The aqua-lung (now known as SCUBA) allowed, of course, easy access to underwater sites. Its development was followed by creation of a suite of excavation and recording methods that allowed the serious systematic archaeological study of shipwrecks, submerged towns, and other underwater resources.

In many important ways, the perception of historical archaeology as ‘handmaiden to history’ outlasted the genesis of the discipline of historical archaeology, and caused practitioners to continue to argue for the validity of historical archaeology, and to continue to claim its place at the intellectual table, well into the final quarter of the century if not to this very day. By the end of the century, however, historical archaeology in North America and beyond existed as a vibrant and dynamic discipline marked by healthy professional societies; a large number of practitioners who had been trained as historical archaeologists and who identified themselves as such; a broad and successful publication programs of journals, books, newsletters, and websites; the acceptance of historical archaeology as a legitimate responsibility of historic preservation; and a large number of academic programs that offered courses or formal programs in historical archaeology at the graduate level.

One of the biggest challenges to the emergence of historical archaeology as a discipline was one of selfdefinition. While the importance of the historical record (written and oral) to historical archaeology had been widely accepted early on, it also served to fuel much debate on whether historical archaeology was most appropriately considered a part of the discipline of history or a part of anthropology, or that it belonged somewhere else entirely. Those arguing that it belonged to history were reacting partly to their own disciplinary alignments, and also to the uses to which historical archaeology was, in their perspective, best suited, or to examples of how it had so far been applied. Very simply put, those on one side of this equation believed that historical archaeology could best serve history by helping to provide physical illustrations of historical events, by answering very particular historical questions, and the like. On the other side, there were an increasing number of practitioners who believed that historical archaeology was more than a ‘handmaiden to history’ and that it had scholarly contributions to make that were different than those appropriate in any other established fields of inquiry (see Historical Archaeology: Methods).

How to define the subject of study was another matter of concern. Early on, it was common to reference history itself, defining historical archaeology as the study of cultures after the introduction of written history. This was fraught with many conceptual problems, as even in North America the point when written history ‘commenced’ varies geographically as well as between cultural groups - even within a region. As interest among North American scholars grew in globalizing the study of historical archaeology, this relationship was soon enough seen to be even less relevant in places such as Asia and Europe. At this point, this simplistic approach to definition was revealed to be a testament to the ‘New World’ focus held by the pioneers of historical archaeology.

The propulsion of historical archaeology away from an alignment with history and toward anthropology, and the start of a trajectory toward a definition of historical archaeology that works on a global level, began to accelerate during the period of intellectual excitement and innovation surrounding the onset of the ‘new archaeology’ during the 1960s. Although the new archaeology was received with varying degrees of acceptance around the world, it nevertheless was important in galvanizing a body of young scholars with the idea that the archaeology of the recent past was both viable and important. People such as Lewis Binford, James Deetz, Edwin Dethlefsen, and Stanley South stepped forward and championed historical archaeology as a grand anthropological laboratory that had value well beyond the validation of history or the elucidation of historical detail or illustration. Though their approaches to archaeological interpretation were ultimately different - some favored interpretation derived from archaeological science while others preferred what was to be later labeled a postprocessual approach - these scholars and others were successful in arguing that historical archaeology was indeed a discipline unto itself. The lasting interest of scholarly contributions from this era, exemplified by seminal works such as James Deetz’s In Small Things Forgotten, first published in 1977 and Stanley South’s 1977 volume Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology, identifies this period as a watershed in the development of the discipline.

It is thus inarguable that the modern discipline of historical archaeology is heavily indebted to North American scholars and that the debates and discourse leading to its emergence happened more often than not at North American gatherings. This focus on the New World, and almost by default on the colonial influence of Europe in the New World, led to a somewhat Eurocentric conceptualization of the discipline’s subject. As recently as 1991, for example, the late James Deetz defined historical archaeology as ‘‘... the archaeology of the spread of European societies worldwide, beginning in the fifteenth century, and their subsequent development and the impact on native peoples in all parts of the world.’’ Attempting to broaden this definition somewhat to account for research experiences in North America, Europe, and South America, Charles Orser offered a compelling, and beautifully simple, definition of historical archaeology as concerning itself with the archaeological study of the modern world. Many scholars, including many from outside North America, see Orser’s model as patently Eurocentric and simplistically capitalistic in nature, and offer alternative approaches to understanding the history of the world’s cultures through historical archaeology.

Thus, spurred on by the increasing globalization of our world, and of all scholarly inquiry, the maturation of historical archaeology at the close of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first has been characterized by bringing voices from all parts of the world to the table for the discussion of what historical archaeology should become.

Parallel with developments in North America during the last half of the last century, scholars in other parts of the world have been busy conducting historical archaeology in different historical, political, and social (both past and present) contexts. The result has been a rising discussion on redefining historical archaeology to be less focused on European expansionism and to be more concerned with the stories of all people and cultures of the world living during the time when their history or the history of their neighbors was being preserved through writing or memory.

In a mid-1980s review of historical archaeology in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, Merrick Posnansky and Christopher DeCourse rejected standing definitions of historical archaeology developed by North American scholars, not because of the ‘‘contact implication that it represents but the emphasis in some of the literature on the one sided impact of that contact.’’ Independence in Africa caused a new nationalism expressly counter to the old colonial structure. The result was a deliberate reaction against archaeology that was focused on these colonial powers in favor of one seeking to establish national identities based on the archaeology of indigenous populations. The goal was to view the component populations through the shroud of colonialism.

Recently, Peter Schmidt and Jonathan Walz have continued this discussion by arguing that African cultures represent modern cultures regardless of the effect of European expansionism. The focus becomes not European contact or colonialism, but rather ‘‘local African historiographies’’ (Schmidt and Walz 2007:54). An important role of historical archaeology lies in validating these African historiographies, many based on oral tradition, by testing and correcting Western interpretations of African traditions, providing bridging information where gaps exist in tradition, by reassessing models of material change, and by challenging foreign interpretations of African history. In essence, the focus shifts from a concern on the effect of European expansion on Africa and African cultures to a focus on developing carefully validated contextualized interpretations of local African cultures.

Of importance, these new contextualized interpretations allow African cultures to preside as modern cultures alongside European cultures regardless of the influence of one upon the other. Matthew Johnson argues that such a focus on local materially based contextual studies is exactly how we should conceive of global historical archaeology, and as a way to move away from global models of the modern world based on capitalism in favor of the recognition of the power and importance of the local expressions of culture.

These views on the importance of contextual studies emerged to some degree from Johnson’s examination of the archaeology of capitalism. As Johnson notes, the component parts of capitalism have local genealogies that must be understood before capitalism itself can be understood: ‘‘... an archaeology of such elements as [capitalist] agrarian practices, architecture, and material culture must place them back into those contexts and genealogies for a richer, more contextual understanding of how the archaeology of the Georgian Order is related to social practices related to capitalism’’ (Johnson 1996:204). The implication of this line of thought is that in order to understand the global spread of capitalism, it is essential to develop contextual studies of local cultures including those that may seem to be unaffected by the emergence of capitalism within a particular region.

Recognizing the North American origins of the discipline, Brazilian scholar Pedro Paulo A. Funari is another who argues against the utility of a monolithic global definition for historical archaeology. He cites the disparate scholarly traditions of differing parts of the world as one significant barrier to such an approach. Also making a world approach difficult is the differing time depths and the nature of relationships and developmental trajectories of the historical period in various regions of the world. The colonial history of Africa, for example, is clearly vastly different from than that of North America which, among other things, results in vastly different interests in terms of research. But Funari also stands on the shoulders of the long lineage of historical archaeology scholars from North America and around the world in expounding the importance of material, written, and oral sources of information about the past, and of the importance of the discipline of historical archaeology in using a patently comparative approach to look at many important questions about the past, to write the histories of those who are otherwise unknown, and to correct the histories of those whose past has been distorted or withheld by the forces of history. What makes historical archaeology a useful and dynamic discipline is, to Funari, its comparative approach and willingness to accept various methods for understanding the past. It is the discussion resulting from the differences between regions and approaches taken by scholars that leads to significant advances in disciplinary knowledge, and knowledge about the world, ‘‘because an understanding of the complexity of society, its features and changes, can only be gained from a pluralistic and interdisciplinary world perspective’’ (Funari 1999:58).

A hallmark of the maturing of historical archaeology into a discipline independent of theoretical or methodological advances has been the development of specialized venues for scholarly discourse. Their emergence was the result of at least two forces: resistance to the inclusion of historical archaeology into existing conference venues and publications, and a concurrent growing number of historical archaeologists with something to say. In reaction to these forces, Stanley South conceived of and held the first Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology (CHSA) in 1960 and provided a venue for many very important statements and debates in the formative years of the discipline. Proceedings of these meetings were published in the Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology Papers. Though held in the Southeast and occasionally in conjunction with the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, the CHSA was not a regional conference but was rather one focused on methodological and theoretical issues, and it had a major impact on thought in historical archaeology.

A few years later, in 1966, the International Conference on Historical Archaeology was held in Dallas, Texas, on the campus of Southern Methodist University. On the agenda was consideration of creating a new society dedicated to historical archaeology. Present in Dallas were many seminal figures in the history of American archaeology - figures representing an honor roll of the founders of modern historical archaeology and including, among others, Arnold L. Pilling, Carl Chapman, Charles Cleland, John L. Cotter, Edwin S. Dethlefsen, Charles Fairbanks, Bernard L. Fontana, J. C. Harrington, Edward Jelks, Ivor Noel Hume, G. Hubert Smith, Stanley South, and Roderick Sprague.

In Dallas, it was debated what to call the discipline, which Ivor Noel Hume recommended should be ‘historical archaeology’, and what to call this society, which Stanley South moved should be the ‘Society for Historical Archaeology’. The formal creation of the Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA) followed in 1967, and it has since become an international voice for the discipline and its annual conference a major venue for scholarly discourse.

At this same time, a number of parallel developments occurred that have influenced the subsequent maturation of the discipline. In 1959, to combat the same lack of a venue for communication, the Council for Underwater Archaeology (CUA) was formed. At this time, technology was making underwater exploration practical on a large scale, and interest was growing on conducting true archaeological research underwater. Formed in North America, the CUA represented a worldwide network of communication for underwater archaeologists. In 1963, the first Conference on Underwater Archaeology was held in St. Paul, Minnesota.

In the late 1960s, the CUA and the Conference on Underwater Archaeology became inactive but almost immediately, in the early 1970s, an underwater component of the new SHA conference was established. In 1973, the heir to CUA, the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology (ACUA), was established at that year’s SHA conference. Today the ACUA is an integral force within the SHA, and the annual conference has become the International Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology.

Also, in 1959, the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology (SPMA) was formed in Great Britain. The SPMA promotes the ‘‘archaeology of late medieval to industrial society in Britain, Europe and those countries influenced by European colonialism’’ through publications such as Post-Medieval Archaeology and an annual conference. Recognizing shared and overlapping interests, the SPMA and SHA have held joint meetings on several occasions.

In 1970, the Australian Society for Historical Archaeology (ASHA) was formed in Australia to provide a venue for discourse and publication. In 1991, the name was changed to the Australasia Society for Historical Archaeology to recognize expansion of the mission to include New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific region in general.

The multiple parallel developments related to historical archaeology in North America and virtually simultaneous parallel developments in Great Britain and Australia clearly illustrate the level of interest in different variations of historical archaeology as a worldwide horizon of scholarship during the very late 1950s through the 1960s (see Oceania: Historical Archaeology in Australia; Europe, West: Historical Archaeology in Britain). Though archaeologists in North America grappled during this period and later with definitions of historical archaeology that were very parochial in retrospect, these parallel developments were symptomatic of the global nature of this emerging discipline. By the end of the twentieth century, scholarship in historical archaeology had recognized that any definition of the discipline must reflect the global nature of the cultures, sites, and times being studied by historical archaeologists. Of importance, these new and evolving definitions do not ordain any particular methodological or theoretical paradigm or platform. Historical archaeologists embrace the full range of theoretical approaches that may be in vogue anywhere within archaeology, while still taking advantage of the rich oral and written record of the past - the availability of the historical record remains the hallmark of the discipline that presents a broadness of data and dynamic sets of richly separate comparative data that allow historical archeologists to ask, and hope to answer, suites of questions not otherwise possible.

See also: Africa, Historical Archaeology; Americas, Central: Historical Archaeology in Mexico; Americas, North: H istorical Archaeology in the United States; Americas, South: Historical Archaeology; Asia, East: Historical Archaeology; Europe, South: Medieval and Post-Medieval; Europe, West: Historical Archaeology in Britain; Historical Archaeology in Ireland; Historical Archaeology: Future; Methods; Oceania: Historical Archaeology in Australia; Tourism and Archaeology.

Prehistory Literally, the time before written history. structuralism An approach to studying language and culture that argues for the common existence of complex mental structures or templates underlying all human consciousness. worldview/mindset An alternative term for the structuralist mental template. A worldview is a mental structure that arises through learning the normative grammar of binary opposition, for example, light/dark, raw/cooked, culture/nature.