archaeological remains, documents, and anthropology a call for a new culture history

8/12/2019 Archaeological Remains, Documents, And Anthropology a Call for a New Culture History

1/8

Archaeological Remains, Documents, and Anthropology: A Call for a New Culture HistoryAuthor(s): Robert L. SchuylerSource: Historical Archaeology, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1988), pp. 36-42Published by: Society for Historical ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25615658.

Accessed: 10/08/2011 01:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for Historical Archaeologyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Historical Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sochistarchhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25615658?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25615658?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sochistarch


2/8

ROBERT L. SCHUYLER

Archaeological Remains,Documents, and Anthropology:a Call for New CultureHistoryABSTRACT

Historical archaeology is either a significant or superfluousendeavor, depending on the level one stands on to critiquethe discipline. If theoretical questions concerning the nature, dynamics and evolution of cultures are the startingpoint, or equally ifmore substantive but similarly broadquestions of modern world systems are selected, thenthe results of a quarter century of excavations on historicsites are indeed weak and unconvincing. In contrast, a viewgrounded on culture history or historic ethnographyfinds historical archaeology tobe potentially an impressive,productive field, equal inmany ways to other data sourcesincluding written records. It is suggested that historicethnography, based equally on archaeology and writtensources, is the future natural sphere for the archaeologicalinvestigations of themodern world (A.D. 1400-20th century).

IntroductionAlthough twenty years have passed since the

founding of the Society forHistorical Archaeology, it ismore appropriate to speak of historicalarchaeology as entering its second quarter-centuryof growth. The 1967 organizational meeting inDallas was the culmination of the proto-historyof the field; a proto-history initiated withingovernmental agencies as early as the 1930s. Thedesignation of any precise starting point for ascholarly field is arbitrary; nevertheless, a moreimportant founding date would be 1960. In thatyear, JohnCotter introducedAmerican Civilization 770 ( Problems and Methods of Historical

Archaeology ?Both terms 6 credits, Thursday2-4) at the University of Pennsylvania. Hiscourse, which was anthropological in orientation,was soon paralleled on the other side of thecontinent when ArthurWoodward offeredAnthro

pology 294 ( Historical Archaeology 2 credits)in the Spring 1964 semester at theUniversity ofArizona. Cotter's class was more important because of its continuitywhich almost spanned twodecades and because itwas a graduate offering. Itwas only when historical archaeology entered anacademic setting that its intellectual foundationcould be finalized by training scholars solelydedicated to that specialization.After at least a quarter of a centuryof existing asa recognized area of research a 1987 evaluation ofthe field must answer one basic question. Ishistorical archaeology a successful endeavor? Discussion of thisquestion isusually deflected by twoobstacles of our own making which must bepushed aside. The first impediment is the P-P-PP-P Complex, an acronym for the PsuedoProcessual Progress Proffered by Prehistorians.This complex confuses historical archaeologistswith the self defacing belief thatprehistorians usemore sophisticated methodology and,more importantly,have successfully issued processual statements, while historical archaeology is flounderingon a particularistic level. This belief is erroneousand is diverting attention from the real problems.The possibility that two social groups, rather thanone, may have occupied Lindenmeier, theprobability thatmatrilocal residence structured the assemblage at Carter Ranch, the observation thatUpper Paleolithic cave artmay be related to socialboundaries between groups, or the embeddednessor disembeddedness ofMonte Alban within ancient Oaxacan civilization are all statements ofculture history, not process. Our colleagues aredealing with a black box?prehistory; any enlightening statements are legitimately impressive butnone of these advances have done much todirectlyilluminate thenature of culture orwhy itevolves.Historical archaeology is no less accomplished ontheprocessual level; itsimply isdealing with a boxwith windows in it.A second intermittentobstruction can be re

moved with a suggestion. If Iwere crude Iwouldsay 'stop trying to kiss the derriere of historians'but since I am not crude I will urge, 'stop tryingtomake uncalled for offerings at the altar of Clio.'This error is serious, has nothing to do with


3/8

ARCHAEOLOGICALREMAINS 37historians, with whom indeed we have potentialconnections, which I will return to, but ratherinvolves amisidentification of thepoints of interaction.

Evaluating the success of historical archaeologydepends on theperspective chosen; one is internal,the other external.

Within its own boundaries historical archaeology is impressively productive. It is taught as aset-off, specific subject at a growing number ofcolleges and universities and there are a good tengraduate programs (M.A. and Ph.D.) with a primary commitment to the field. Compared to 1960an astonishing amount of field research advanceshave been made, not in one but three spheres:contract, governmental agencies (now rangingfrom the federal to themunicipal levels), and theacademic-museum world. A massive, descriptive,and occasionally interpretive, literaturehas beenproduced, our knowledge and control of historicassemblages is improving each year and generalarchaeological methodology has been adapted tohistoric sites. When a younger social historiansuch as JamesBorchert, the author ofAlley Life inWashington (1980:244) states:A thirdpossible way [the first being oral history; the second,ethnography] to avoid the problem of biased sources is throughhistorical archaeology.it would seem, even as he adds it was notpractical for this study, thathistorical archaeology has joined the panoply of established fields.Or has it? Is there external evidence of work onhistoric sites and assemblages making meaningfuladditions to general social scientific and historicalscholarship?In 1982 Eric Wolf, a social anthropologist,published a major work entitledEurope and thePeople WithoutHistory. This book is a significantindicator for archaeology not because of its theoretical stance,which isMarxist, but because of itssubject matter. Wolf is the first contemporaryanthropologist to successfully attempt a globalsynthesis of the emergence and transformationofthemodern world. Its topical divisions practicallydefine historical archaeology as it is practiced inNorth America: Post-medieval development of

European society afterA.D. 1400, geographicalexpansion into the non-Western world and establishment of European hegemony, reaction of native cultures and civilizations as active participantsin thisprocess, transformationof theprocess itselfwith the industrial revolution and a secondary butmore pervasive global impact carrying theworldinto the 20th century.Wolf's scholarship is exhaustive reaching to a detailed level of recentsynthesis and interpretationby both social scientists and historians. Even prehistoric archaeology(surprisingly, considering the temporal focus ofthebook) is utilized.In the Introduction (Wolf 1982:4) is found astatement:If social and cultural distinctiveness and mutual separation werea hallmark of humankind, one would expect to find itmosteasily among the so-called primitives, people without history, supposedly isolated from the external world and fromone another. On this presupposition, what would we make ofthe archaeological findings thatEuropean trade goods appear insites on theNiagra frontier as early as 1570, and thatby 1670sites of theOnondaga subgroup of the Iroquois reveal almost noitems of native manufacture except pipes?This use of data from contact-period sites, is theonly reference inWolf's volume that in anymanner derives from historical archaeology andeven it is drawn secondarily from Francis Jennings, a well known ethnohistorian.We must notbe tempted to faultEricWolf because Europe andthePeople Without History only embarrassinglyhighlights the fact that thefindings of 25 years ofintensive research on the archaeological record ofthemodern world (A.D. 1400-20th century) isbeing successfully ignored by not only historiansbut even our immediate colleagues in social anthropology. Externally in its relationship to general scholarship historical archaeology shows littleimpact.Why? Why is historical archaeology internallysuccessful but externally relatively unproductive?Archaeologists, because of the influence ofcultural resource management, tend to speak interms of Phase I, II and III. I propose that thegrowth of historical archaeology as a field shouldlogically follow a tripartite-phasedadvance. PhaseI?the creation of a distinctive, new area of re


4/8

38 HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 22search has been achieved. We have arrived at theboundary of Phase II?a joining with generalscholarship via descriptive, interpretivecontributions, but have failed to cross over and are nowrunning the risk of turningback on ourselves intoan involutionary dead end. We must return to theinitial years of the existence of the Society forHistorical Archaeology to understand this situation. During the late 1960s a series of articlesopened a discussion on the interrelationship ofarchaeology, history and anthropology. Many feelthisdebate has spent itself;however, I disagree. Itis a set of unresolved problems that all too frequently are expressed as relationships betweenhistory and archaeology when actually theyalmostexclusively involve anthropology thathave frozenhistorical archaeology on Phase I.I will reexamine these questions by simplystatinga position on therelationship of historyandscience which is neither original nor very radical.There are two major traditions of scholarshipconcerned with human beings as social creatures:the historical and the social scientific. These traditions are not dichotomous, nor, necessarily inconflict, but theyare different. These differencesinvolve at least thefollowing threeaspects. First, aspecific subjectmay be studied as a legitimate endin itself,or itmay be viewed asmerely an exampleof something else: a generalization, preferably aprocess, or even a covering law (which areprobabilistic not absolute statements); historianstend to the formerperspective, social scientists thelatter.Second, which is a corollary of thefirst,hasbeen called the uniqueness thesis but morefairly should be seen as a deep respect for thesingularityof events inhistoryas contrastedwith agreaterwillingness to simplify (or, ifyou prefer,violate) that richness of a given phenomenon;historians tend to the former, social scientists tothe latter.Third, themost significant difference,which ismore blurred because certain schools ofanthropological thoughtare fundamentally historical and not scientific in theirpractice, is the basicpoint of reference in research. Historians focus onhumans, either, as with narrative and chroniclehistory, as individuals, or, as with social history,as groups, while social scientists, particularly an

thropologists, may have a non-human referencepoint: culture.If this division between history and social science is accepted thenhistorical archaeology mustbe placed with history, anthropology, on the fenceor in itsown self contained category. I believe itexclusively should be classed with anthropologybecause of all the factors listed above but particularly therelationshipwith its data source. For overtwo decades historians, unless theywere unemployed, have been politely rebuffingtheoccasionalwooings of some historical archaeologists. I believe this rejection is understandable because thearchaeological record has little to say in regard totheir perspective. Artifacts do not communicatewhile written documents, even of a social historicnature, talk directly to the researcher. If, in contrast, the reference point is shifted to an entitywhich is not equal topeople, single or ingroups,then potentially the data sources also shift andexpand. I will return to thispossibility later.The boundary between Phase I and Phase II ofhistorical archaeology has turned intoa barrier fora number of complex reasons involving culturetheory, but more basic is the simple fact thatalmost no historical archaeologists are using theirbirthright as anthropologists. The problem involves anthropology not history.Historical archaeologists are only analyzing one of the data sourcesavailable by definition to their field, the archaeological record. They do not treat thedocumentaryrecord, the second data source, equally. Eitherthey ignore or at best allow the archaeologicalremains to structure theiruse of written sources.Egress from thispredicament is possible if historical archaeologists start to act like anthropologistsand produce, what I will call, historic ethnography.Anthropologists and a few anthropologicallyinfluenced historians have already began work onthe ladder needed to get out of the excavation pithistorical archaeology has started to dig for itselfby remaining on Phase I. Ethnohistory is thefirstrung. By ethnohistory Imean an operational definition: theanalysis of documentary sources leftbycultural groupA about group B. An analogy existsbetween the ethnographic distance between a so


5/8

ARCHAEOLOGICALREMAINS 39cial anthropologist and the foreign society beingstudied and thedistance preserved in such complexsources (Thurman 1982). Ethnohistory has tworelationships tohistorical archaeology. The first issubstantive and substantial.Half of all archaeological research on periods post-dating A.D. 1400could be considered ethnohistoric in that the fieldis deeply concerned not only with European andEuropean colonial societies but also with transculturationbetween thesegroups and native cultures.All scholars working on contact sites should alsobe doing ethnohistory.However, I do notwant todiscuss this requirement but ratheramore generaland simplemessage. Ethnohistory has taughtbothanthropologists and historians that documentarysources are much more complex than a directreadingwould imply. I am not referringto sourceanalysis but to the very nature of documents as acultural product. The richness of the symbolic andmaterial meaning preserved in documents is onlynow being recognized and itwas inpart themorecomplex nature of ethnohistoric sources thathelped to bring this potential to the fore. Themessage for historical archaeologists is that it ispossible for themas anthropologists toanalyse notonly the archaeology but also thewritten sourceswithin the traditionsof theirown field.It is the failureof archaeologists dealing with themodern period todo such analyses thatcreated thebarrier between Phases I and II. The archivalsources may well be explored, perhaps in somedetail, but these investigations are structuredwithin theneeds of thearchaeological record. Thisartificial narrowness must be abandoned. We cannot solve the problem by turning to a group ofmythical historians who supposedly will do ourresearch for us, nor should we want such arelationshipwhich would fundamentally cripple amovement toPhase II.

EthnographicHistoryThe second rungon the scaffolding isnow underconstruction by a few scholars including social

anthropologists and social historians. Rhys Isaac

(1982:5), one of thehistorians, has suggested theterm ethnographic history :Anthropologists cross frontiers to explore communities otherthan their own. Social historians cross time spans to studyearlier periods. Whether one moves away from oneself incultural space or in historical time, one does not go far beforeone is in a world where the taken-for-granted must cease tobeso. Translation thenbecomes necessary. Ways must be found ofattaining an understanding of themeanings that the inhabitantsof other worlds have given to theirown everyday customs.Isaac has produced a convincing example of ethnographic history in his 1982 prize winningbook, The Transformation ofVirginia 1740-1790.Ten years earlierAnthony F. C. Wallace producedanother example, although he uses the label ethnohistory, with Rockdale, the Growth of anAmerican Village in theEarly Industrial Revolution (1972). These two works differ in severalaspects (one is concerned with a community, theotherwith a culture area, one isGeertzian in itstheoretical approach, the other more generallymentalist) but together they offer a significantadvance indiachronic scholarship. They present amethod? ethnographic history ?that uses anexplicit definition of culture to explore the past,which if one can jduge by the reaction of bothanthropologists and historians is differentenoughfrom traditionalapproaches todraw a great deal ofpositive attention and comment.Ethnographic history, nevertheless, is not, Ibelieve, thefinal rungon the ladder toPhase IIweneed as historical archaeologists. Wallace utilizesonly documentary sources in his reconstruction ofRockdale and its history; indeed, even the selection of documents is narrowed by the theoreticalstand. Isaac seems on the surface to be moreholistic giving the reader insightful thickdescriptions of mature colonial Virginia that includedance, music, architecture (exterior and interior)and landscape. These images on closer examinationdissolve because there is an almost exclusiveprimacy of documents over other sources in hisresearch. He really does not use archaeology,material culture or even the illustrative sources(engravings, paintings) in a convincing style.Hisdocumentary sources, likeWallace's, are alsopeculiar in their selection. The Transformation of


6/8

40 HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY,VOLUME 22Virginia is predominately based on a very limitednumber of classic, personal documents thatspeak to the researcher seeking an emic analysis. Landon Carter's diary is a fine internalexam

ple, while the journal of Philip Fithian, a goodexternal, indeed ethnohistoric, example. In a similarmanner Rockdale is constructed on the richcorrespondence, diaries and personal papers of its19th century local elites.Delimitation of theevidential sources is directlyrelated to thementalist, delimited definitionof culture chosen for doing ethnographic history.Such a selection isproductive as thesuccess of thesetwo volumes demonstrate; nevertheless, a mentalist, actor-centered definition of culture, like thehistorical tradition of scholarship, passes oversources such as the archaeological record. Ethnographic history, which is still in its formativestage,moves us forwardbut itsbasic elements needsubstantial readjustment. Borrowing a phrase fromtheDepartment ofAmerican Civilization at Penn,I would suggest that historic ethnography ismore amenable to our interestsas archaeologists.

Historic EthnographyHistoric ethnography would involve the following threeelements:(1) the recognition that culture comes to us inhistory in the form of packages, functionalunitswith temporal and spatial boundaries, not asdisembodied variables or processes, nor decontextualized research topics (e.g., class conflict,women inhistory, urbanism's influence on ethni

city). Context is thekey toproducing ethnography,synchronic or historic, and a return to an earlierpartially functional anthropological image of culture is long overdue,(2) the culture concept utilized must be consistent and holistic on two levels: (a) itmust notarbitrarilydelimit culture toonly symbolic or onlymaterial phenomena; technology, economy, sociopolitical structures and ideology are all equallyaspects of culture, (b) if culture is not equal topeople or only human mental processes, then itexists in all data sources and the relative strengths

and weaknesses of these sources are unknowablefrom case to case. Historic ethnography mustgive equal attention to the archaeological and thedocumentary records, and possibly other sources(oral history, contemporary ethnography or ethnoarchaeology). This iswhere ethnographic history falls short and although a lack of familiaritywith differingdata bases is a partial explanation sois the selection of a limited definition of culture,

(3) and, finally, historic ethnography mustinvolve the explicit presentation of a theoreticalposition and explain how it is being operationalized as a research design.Historical archaeologists must simultaneouslyanalyze both the archaeology and the textualsources from an anthropological perspective. Thecombining of these differentdata sources will enable us to at least attempt historic ethnographyandmove historical archaeology out of Phase I. Itis indicative that almost all current archaeologicalreports assume a final format thatdivides into anarchaeology section, a history section (if it ispresent at all), and a section onmethodology. It isnecessary thatan adequate statement is offered onhow theresearcher handled thearchaeological dataand a parallel statement (almost always lacking) onhow the documents were handled, toget us to thepoint of a final culture historical or processual synthesis. Yet at thepointwhere the historical archaeologist should be displaying a higher level of his orher anthropological trainingthereportstops. It is asthougha social historian, such as Borchert, dividedhis finalmonograph into:Part 1,historical conclusions based on documents written on white paper,Part 2, historical conclusions based on documentswrittenon yellow paper; general conclusions, none.Historic ethnography can not be written unless an anthropological analysis of the archivalsources has been undertaken firstwith commitments of timeand effort qual towhat goes into theexcavation, analysis and synthesis of the archaeological data.A Question of Scale

The natural unit for historic ethnography isthe community or some subunit of thecommu


7/8

ARCHAEOLOGICALREMAINS 41nity, and yet it is now recognized, because ofresearchers such as Eric Wolf, ImmanuelWallerstein and Fernand Braudel, thatculture appears ona number of different historic-functional scalesranging from the individual as a member of acultural tradition to world systems. All of thesecultural levels can only exist ifmanifested in thematerial realm. Therefore, all scales are present inthe archaeological record and historical archaeology can explore the entire range.However, there isa basic problem which is relative and perhapsabsolute. You do not dig up the state ofGeorgia,unless you areWilliam Tecumseh Sherman; youdo not excavate on a global level. For the timebeing, the unit of studymust be the community(the site) or some smaller subunit. Communitydoes not, at the same time, implya total, functioning society but rather a historically integratedcultural unit. Thus a fur trading post, a frontierfort,a lumbering camp, or theMerrimack Corporation in 19th century Lowell, with its factoriesand housing, are as much communities as aPuritan village. This specificity of focus may beabsolute in thathistorical archaeology will alwaysmake itsmajor contribution at the site level ofanalysis. Certainly there is no way to approach ahigher scale, a higher historically connected scale,a region for example, until several historic ethnographies have been produced within itsboundaries.

Phase III?Historic EthnologyHistoric ethnology or comparative studies, agoal frequentlydiscussed by historical archaeolo

gists,will only be possible when there are similarunits to compare. If the division between a socialscientific tradition and a historical tradition ingeneral scholarship is recognized this does notmean that the division is absolute. There is amethodological linkage but thatcommonality is alltoo frequently exaggerated. Source analysis is notcomplex and can be easily learned by doing. Amore significant cross-fertilization involves thesecondary scholarly literaturebeing successfullyproduced by historians. If, for example, a histori

cal archaeologist is specialized on plantation-slavearchaeology, it is absolutely necessary that thecurrent literatureon the subject, most of whichcomes from thepens of historians, be controlled.There is littlereciprocitybecause historical archaeologists have yet to produce much in theway offinal cultural syntheseswhich would interest therscholars. More specifically itmay be possible tocompare individual historic ethnographies withwork produced by historians, especially social andeconomic historians, on specific typesof communities. Such comparisons are not ideal because theunits will not be based on the same range of data;however, such comparisons will allow a morerapidmovement of thefield towardPhase III as thearchaeologist awaits the creation of plural historic ethnographies on a given community type.As I opened thispaper with a recognition of thetwomajor traditions of scholarship, thehistoricaland the social scientific, Iwould like to concludeby referringtoan even broader division. I place theresearch of all scientists (social and physical) andall historians into a category of objective scholarship. I know thework objective is not verypopular today, but this is a restorative polemic. Ihave already urged old fashion holism, a return tofunctionalism, so why not objectivity, and that iswhat Imean?an attempt to gain a neutral, objective understanding of reality, especially humanreality to the degree that it is humanly possible.This perspective is in contrast to a humanistic pointof view?not particularly concerned with beingneutral or even objective but ratheran attempt togain an emotional understanding, or perhaps itwould be better to say appreciation, of reality,especially human reality. It is necessary to keepthese two purposes separate during research. AsStanley South has so aptly put it,he writes poetryand digs science (archaeology) but does not confuse the two.Yet even thisultimate division is notabsolute. For archaeologists they connect at theend and at thebeginning.Once historical archaeology has produced somethingworthwhile togeneral scholarship, which hasyet tohappen, these historic ethnographies mayindeed be used to enhance theheritage of nations,ethnic groups or other divisions of humanity.


8/8

42 HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY,VOLUME 22Nevertheless, all of science, social science, history, anthropology and archaeology have at theirmost basic level a bedrock of humanistic support.We do not do anthropology or archaeology becausewe hope to uncover the six great laws of culturebut simply because it is enjoyable todo archaeology. As Stuart Piggott, theEnglish prehistorian,pointed out, there is a romance to archaeology.''The message of thispaper is thatas anthropologythere is an equal mystery, romance and potentialrichness to thedocument. No one will or should doour archival research forus and it is only after thefirst generation of true historical archaeologists,theyounger people currentlyenrolled inour graduate programs, take the place and surplant usretreaded prehistorianswho currentlydominate thediscipline, many of whom like theirsocial anthropological colleagues, enjoy floating on canoesbetween theTrobriand Islands, or sitting inpits atLindenmeier, or having intimaterelationshipswithgorillas in East Africa, but simply do not lovearchival dust as they love thefield dirtunder theirfingernails; it is itonly after thisgenerational shiftoccurs that a fully anthropological historical archaeology will emerge and take its place withingeneral scholarship.

A NewCultureHistoryTwo years before John Cotter offered the firstcourse in historical archaeology in Philadelphia,JohnW. Griffin (1958:1-6) issued a littleheededcall for a form of culture history in historical

archaeology. Almost thirtyyears later this pleamust be resurrected and repeated. Culture history has been given an almost fatally negativeconnotation by processual archaeologists (Binford1968) who arbitrarilyand erroneously limited it totime-space systematics (cf., Dunnell 1986). Ifculturehistory is recognized in itsoriginal entirety,which afterW. W. Taylor included both chronicleand the reconstruction and interpretationof pastlife ays, then the development of historic eth

nography followed by comparative studies willhelp to reestablish a culture historic core to bothhistorical and prehistoric archaeology.

REFERENCESBinford, Lewis R.1968 Archaeological Perspectives. InNew Perspectives inArchaeology, edited by Sally R. and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 5-32. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

Borchert, James1980 Alley Life inWashington. University of Illinois Press,Urbana.Dunnell, Robert C.1986 Five Decades ofAmerican Archaeology. InAmerican

Archaeology Past and Future, edited by David J.Meltzer, Don D. Fowler and JeremyA. Sabloff, pp.23-49. Published for the Society forAmerican Archaeology by the Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, D.C.Griffin, John W.1958 End Products of Historic Sites Archaeology. In Sym

posium on Role of Archaeology inHistorical Research, edited by John L. Cotter, pp. 1-6. Reprintedas Chapter 6 inHistorical Archaeology: A Guide toSubstantive and Theoretical Contributions, ed. RobertL. Schuyler (1978), pp. 20-23. Baywood PublishingCompany, Farmingdale, New York.

Isaac, Rhys1982 The Transformation of Virginia 1740-1790. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Thurman, Melburn D.1982 Plains Indian Winter Counts and the New Ethnohistory. Plains Anthropologist 27 (97): 239-43.

Wallace, Anthony F. C.1972 Rockdale, theGrowth of an American Village in theEarly Industrial Revolution. Alfred A. Knopf, NewYork.

Wolf, Eric R.1982 Europe and thePeople Without History. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley.

Robert L. SchuylerUniversity MuseumUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19104