Module 2: Why Do Historical Archaeology?

Reading: Wallace, "Visiting the Past"

[Begin with a discussion of the reading notes assignment: what was the main issue addressed by Wallace in "Visiting the Past"? What was his position on this issue? What evidence did he use? Which of the main questions of this course does this article relate to?]

Archaeology is the study of past people through their material remains: tools, dishes, food remains, buildings, burials, etc. Historical archaeology is the study of past people through their material remains when written texts for that period are also available. Thus, historical archaeology is text-aided archaeology. But what is the purpose of text-aided archaeology? What can archaeology add to our appreciation of the past?

Group Exercise: Ask the class to divide into groups of four and discuss what artifacts can add to our understanding of the past, even if we have documents. Give them about five minutes. Reconvene the class and ask what the groups decided. Groups will probably say that artifacts allow you to test the truth of historical documents, they lend immediacy to historical documents, they allow you to explore areas of life not treated by historical documents, they recreate the lives of groups not included in historical documents, and they shape people's view of the past through the selective display of certain kinds of artifacts (discussed by Wallace on pp. 158-61.)

Historical archaeology has gone through several phases, more or less paralleling the phases described by Wallace for history museums:

(1) Before 1965, archaeology was used to substantiate historical texts and to recover objects for museum display in conjunction with the restoration of historical sites. Artifacts could lend an aura of reality and emotional involvement to American history ("George Washington slept here" really does have an emotional impact. Have any of you ever felt that way handling some artifact or something really old?). This would enhance national unity through shared commitment to "traditional American values" such as patriotism, individualism, and opportunity. This was an aspect of the American heritage movement, with its goal to preserve sites that would express a collective identity of the American people, their shared history and values. Emphasis was upon the lives and actions of our "founding fathers," the white men who created our national institutions. Or artifacts were used to illustrate the hard work, inventiveness, and success of ordinary people in American history and to suggest that technology and change are good (and generally, that American history has been a history of progress, with contemporary America being the best of all).

As Wallace points out, interest in historic sites peaked whenever national unity was threatened: by the impending Civil War in the 1850s, by immigration, labor militarism, and class conflict after World War I, and in Cold War McCarthyism after World War II. The idea behind this early form of historic archaeology was to mask social conflict in the past and to mute social critique in the present.

(2) But during the 1960s, various social activists argued that this was too narrow a reading of the history of the United States. What new goal did the activists of the 1960s and 1970s set for historical museums? Social history—to recover the lives and contributions of other segments of American society: African Americans, Native Americans, women, immigrants, industrial workers, and so on. But how? These groups were often denied access to education; they left some, but not many, documents. We could rely on the literate members of society, the well-off white males, for their observations on these groups, but that might not be entirely satisfactory. Why not? Because they were prejudiced? Because they lacked experience with the actual conditions people faced (this is the reason for "participant observation" in cultural anthropology)? Because they forgot to mention aspects of life that were routine and commonplace? (For example, Deetz observes that documents tell us a tremendous amount about Puritan philosophy, but they hardly mention the Puritan diet—this was not a subject of debate and therefore did not draw conscious attention.) Because they were not familiar with the values and outlooks of people beyond their own group?

In contrast to the historical record, archaeology is very democratic. Everyone leaves junk. Artifacts can be used to reconstruct the experiences and contributions of groups underrepresented in history.

(3) According to Wallace, the depiction of social history is not enough. What additional goal does he set for historical museums? Political economy: understanding the interrelations between groups that are connected by a capitalist economy. Since 1974, historical archaeology has focused on placing social history in the context of the worldwide development of capitalism. For example, according to Deetz (1977:5), "historical archaeology is the archaeology of the spread of European cultures throughout the world since the fifteenth century and their impact on and interaction with the cultures of indigenous peoples." This worldwide expansion was one aspect of the growth of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system with several unusual features: mass production featuring machines and wage labor, the production of these goods for sale, and a dynamic profit-oriented, growth-oriented, economy. The development of capitalism since the fifteenth century has been accompanied by the spread of European people throughout the world, European contact (and conflict) with non-Europeans, and the development of great wealth, accompanied by the development of slavery, racism, sexism, and the deterioration of the environment.

What is the goal of a historical archaeology of capitalism? To use artifacts to confront the struggles and daily problems of survival that emerge from the dynamics of the capitalist system, to connect the past with the present, to become aware of how people in the past produced the constraints and opportunities that shape our lives in the present. This should produce a better-informed, politically more effective citizen public. Artifacts again are used as the basis for civics lessons, lessons about how American society is structured and how and why it should change. Artifacts bring the abstractions of the capitalist system down to people's lives.