This has been an interesting discussion on the global nature of
historical archaeology . In part I certainly agree with Brooks
about the views of many Americans [e.g. the emphasis on "American
Exceptionalism"] but also think we need to not lose the basic points in
side discussions about George III.
(1) Historical Archaeology is global by definition because its subject
matter is global; not because researchers want to take, or not take, a
global perspective. Chris Matthews' point is one of the best made in
this discussion. We should be studying how global processes of world
technology, capitalism, nationalism and ideology work out, or do not work
out, at a specific point in time and space. This does not mean, at the
same time, that all processes in the Modern World are global. I do not
agree with Eric Wolf's drift on this question. The Modern World is made
up of layers of global, regional and very local processes and structures
all nested within each other; indeed, this fact of continuity
(pre-modern) and localism and its interrelationship with global forces
may be one of the most interesting aspects of our research. By the way, this
complexity does involve specific national entities such as the United States.
American Studies is a valid subject and approach.
(2) "Historic Ethnography" - the locally based and "thick
description" and interpretation of microscopic case studies is our strongest
contribution. That was my point in the article I had in HA in 1988. I never
suggested or even hinted that such units should be studied as isolates.
An attempt to say I did advocate such "isolationism" is an absolute
misreading of my statements; indeed, even the founders of SHA in 1967 in
Dallas issued a clear and correct statement on this issue. I do think that
such detailed studies of how culture works in the Modern World - on all
levels- will be our strongest contribution, at least, until we have
enough such "historic ethnographies" to move on to regional syntheses
and interpretations that are fundamentally based on archaeological data.
Of course such studies should always be done within both a local and
global perspective.
The major problem is not "either-or" but rather what theoretical
approach or model will best serve us in trying to understanding how local
case studies reflect all the various levels of socio -cultural interaction
(or lack of interaction). I opt for cultural evolutionary theory.
(3) Clearly defining our field.
Ironically the other major problem about Historical
Archaeology is that it is frequently definited with too broad a brush. We
must take a global perspective - which in no way slights local
perspectives - but we must not try to define historical as the archaeology
of history. When our field is defined as a branch of general archaeological
scholarship that studies the past by combining archaeological and
documentary data [as Kathy Deagan and many others do] this involves a major
intellectual and political error. There are many many archaeologies that
fall equally under such a definition (e.g. Egyptology, , Maya Archaeology,
Sumerology, Classical Archaeology,pre -Ming Chinese Archaeology , etc. etc.)
and there are even some groups of researchers who are not archaeologists
(e.g. some architectural historians) who use such a combined approach to
the past. Such a definition defines our field out of existence and puts
it into direct political competition with much more successful disciplines
already well established in the public eye. When Deagan uses such a
definition and then David H. Thomas copies it and puts it into one of the
most popular text books used in North America it becomes much more than
just a semantic problem.
Historical Archaeology is a branch of general archaeology which
studies the Modern World (ca. AD 1400 to the present). It has a quite
distinct and quite important subject matter and we should be clear when
we talk about our disicpline that we understand our own field.
On one hand we are being too provincial and at the same time so
broad as to define ourselves out of existence. I am not going to go into a
discussion here of how the Modern World is set off from traditional
civilization and time periods (be it Rome, or Sung China or even Medieval
Europe) but I believe it is so differentiated in both historical and
cultural evolutionary terms.
Historical archaeologists have realized their field is global in
scope but set off in time and history since the inception of the field.
As I mentioned there was a good discussion at the Conference in 1967 in
Dallas (see Volume 1 Number 1 of HA) and in the early 1970s I created a
"Global" Section in the SHA Newsletter to highlight work outside of North
America and Western Europe.
Hopefully any introductory booklets on the field will also make
these two points even if they focus on data drawn from North America.
Finally, if you want to advance the international nature of
Historical you can do so by joining (assuming you are a North
American) the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology [I have been a member
since 1967], the Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology [I am a
Life Founding member], subscribing to the South African Newsletter
(Cross-Mends) and by supporting the appropriate Underwater and Industrial
groups. Also, if you are outside of North America, or work outside of that
continent, Ron Michael is actively looking for submissions from Europe,
Asia, Africa, Latin America and Oceania [sorry - also the West Indies].
Bob Schuyler
By the way Alasdair, John . Cotter, as you probably know, just
passed away. He held the Purple Heart from being wounded at Normandy.
This reminds me - America had to save you in 1918 [the French helped a
little bit], again in 1942, had to pull our out of the Suez Canal in the
1960s and was about to save you from Argentina when Buenos Aires realized
the Falklands were worthless. Thank God Victoria died in 1901 and did not
live to see such events.*
[* for some Americans - the above final remark is a joke.]
|