! "#$% & '($) *+& $"'" *+& & !

$$ , *- +

./! $#&$##01)0" $ 22$) #2(3 '4$##(

5 ! 6 )0" $ 22$) #2'( %
/ ! 6 )0" $ 22$) #2(3 '

7 '#$2
A 408 Archaeology and the Emergence of Fields: Historical and Classical

EVANS, J.G. 2003. Environmental archaeology and the

social order. London: Routledge. Archaeology and the Emergence
GELL, P., J. TIBBY, J. FLUIN, P. LEAHY, M. REID, K. ADAMSON,
S. BULPIN, A. MACGREGOR, P. WALL BRINK, G. HANCOCK of Fields: Historical and Classical
& B. WALSH. 2005. Accessing liminological change and
variability using fossil diatom assemblages, South East Pedro Paulo A. Funari1, Aline Carvalho2 and
Australia. River Research and Applications 21: 257–69. José Geraldo Costa Grillo3
HESP, P. 2001. The Manawatu Dunefield: environmental 1
change and human impacts. NZ Geographer 57: 33. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas,
LANGLET, D., M. ALUNNO-BRUSCHIA, M. RAFELIS, Sao Paulo, Brazil
2
M. RENARD, M. ROUX, E. SCHEIN & D. BUESTEL. 2006. Laboratório de Arqueologia Pública (LAP),
Experimental and natural cathodoluminescence in the Núcleo de Estudos e Pesquisas Ambientais
shell of Crassostrea gigas from Thau Lagoon (France):
ecological and environmental implications. Marine (Nepam), University of Campinas, Campinas,
Ecology Progress Series 317: 143–56. São Paulo, Brazil
3
LEFEBRE, M. 2007. Zooarchaeological analysis of prehis- Departamento de História da Arte,
toric vertebrate exploitation at Grand Bay Site, Universidade Federal de São Paulo,
Carriacou, West Indies. Coral Reefs 26: 931–44.
MCBRYDE, I. 1984. Kulin greenstone quarries: the social Guarulhos, São Paulo, Brazil
contexts of production and distribution for the Mount
William site. World Archaeology 16: 267–85.
O’CONNOR, T.P. 1998. Environmental archaeology: a matter Introduction
of definition. Environmental Archaeology 2: 1–6.
POPELKA-FILCOFF, R., J. ELIZABETH, J. MIKSA, In this entry two closely linked archaeological
J. DAVID-ROBERTSON, M.D. GLASCOCK & H. WALLACE.
fields are discussed: classical archaeology and his-
2008. Elemental analysis and characterization of ochre
sources from southern Arizona. Journal of Archaeo- torical archaeology. We share Thomas Patterson’s
logical Science 35: 752–62. (2001) externalist approach to the history of sci-
THOMAS, J. 1990. Silent running: the ills of environmental ence, considering the discipline not only through
archaeology. Scottish Archaeological Review 7: 2–6.
changes in ideas and concepts but also as a result
WILKINSON, K. & C. STEVENS. 2003. Environmental
archaeology: approaches, techniques and applica- of intellectual moves linked to social changes.
tions. London: Tempus. This theoretical stand pays attention to social and
cultural issues affecting scholarly production in
Further Reading general and particularly archaeology.
BRANCH, N., M. CANTI, P. CLARK & C. TURNEY. 2005.
Environmental archaeology: theoretical and practical
approaches. London: Hodder Arnold. Historical Background
CHAMBERS, F.M. 1994. Climate change and human
impact on the landscape: studies in palaeoecology The relationship between classical and historical
and environmental archaeology. London: Chapman
archaeology is not a given fact but a chosen way of
and Hall.
DINCAUZE, D.F. 2000. Environmental archaeology: principles understanding the archaeology of societies with
and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. written records and concerned with Western tradi-
DUGMORE, A., A. NEWTON, G. LARSEN & G. COOK. 2000. tion. It is thus a theoretical stand, informed by
Tephrochronology, environmental change and the
a redefinition of the field from the 1990s (Funari
Norse settlement of Iceland. Environmental Archaeol-
ogy 5: 21–34. et al. 1999). Classical archaeology arose very
MATTESON, M. 1960. Reconstruction of prehistoric early, at the beginning of the nineteenth century,
environments through the analysis of molluscan collec- as part of the imperial project of Western powers,
tions from shell middens. American Antiquity 26:
being military in character, a conservative and
117–20.
MUDIE, P.J., A. ROCHON & E. LEVAC. 2005. Decadel-scale male endeavor (Funari 2002). It started as an
sea ice changes in the Canadian Arctic and their ancillary to history and classics, mostly as art
impacts on humans during the past 4,000 years. Envi- history illustrating classical references to peoples
ronmental Archaeology10: 113–26.
and places. In epistemological terms, classical
REITZ, E.J., C.M. SCARRY & S.J. SCUDDER. (ed.) 2008. Case
studies in environmental archaeology (2nd edn.). archaeology was established as a philological dis-
New York: Springer. cipline, concerned with cataloguing and typology,
Archaeology and the Emergence of Fields: Historical and Classical 409 A
and dependent on the mastering of Greek and sites in China and Vietnam, thus including all the
Latin. First and foremost, a classical archaeologist continents. This broad perspective is now widely
was a military male with a good command of accepted, even if historical archaeology is still A
classical languages and literature as well as an mostly a term used to refer to late medieval and
historian. Until last quarter of the twentieth cen- modern material culture as attests a leading
tury, the field continued a conservative course, but journal in the field, International Journal of
since then classical archaeology gained a lot of Historical Archaeology.
traction from social theory and theoretical discus- Disciplinary boundaries are always a thorny
sion in general, even if continuing in line with issue (Burke 2006: 13-4), as it concerns not only
traditions of the field, such as having a good com- an epistemological question (what is and what is
mand of classical languages (Shanks 1996). not within the field) but an administrative one,
Historical archaeology developed in related to power in academia and society at large,
a completely different historical and intellectual as stressed by Pierre Bourdieu (1988). Any study
context. It started in the United States in the of the discipline is thus embedded in power
1960s, as an anthropological field interested in the relations and politics (Meskell 1998), and our
material culture of Anglo-Americans. Although it own stand here is to contextualize the field and
departed from a completely different place in com- our own stand, as we are archaeologists from
parison to classical archaeology, the American dis- the periphery. We thus reject any essentialist
cipline was also reactionary, focusing on the study standpoint, as if a specific definition should be
of the White Protestant Anglo-Saxons (WASP) and correct, for we acknowledge the diversity of
praising the founding fathers (Orser 2001). the field and different approaches. In this entry
In the following decade, as a result of substan- we will deal with two different traditions in the
tial social and academic changes in the United field: European and North American historical
States, in the wake of the civil rights, antiwar, and archaeology.
feminist movements, new issues were included in
historical archaeology, such as the study of European and North American Traditions
subordinate groups, African-Americans, the The epistemological differences between
Irish, and women. Years later, new concerns European and North American traditions are
from outside the USA led to the inclusion of rooted in the different historical and academic
global issues, and the discipline started to discuss contexts. Archaeology started in Europe in the
all historical periods with written documents, nineteenth century as a counterpoint to classical
much beyond the original fifteenth century philology and history. Archaeology was the
onwards thrust as was prevalent in the USA material study of ancient civilizations considered
(Funari et al. 1999). From the late 1990s, there as the intellectual ancestors of the Western
have been a growing number of people putting powers, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and later on
together the archaeology of Greece and Rome Mesopotamia and Palestine. Different civiliza-
(classical archaeology) and the archaeology of tions flourished in those areas in ancient times
other historical periods, including the historical due to the mastering of writing, a key feature of
archaeology of the modern period. civilized life. History itself was thus defined by
writing, and due to an evolutionary approach,
there was a perception that there was
Key Issues/Current Debates ever-growing progress from the most ancient
civilizations to the apex of industrial capitalism
Historical Archaeology (Nitecki & Nitecki 1992).
Historical archaeology as the study of societies Archaeology was thus historical archaeology,
with written records comprises such diverse sub- in so far as it dealt with civilizations using writing
jects as ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, medi- to store knowledge. Prehistory and prehistoric
eval societies, and modern settlements but also archaeology developed later to study material
A 410 Archaeology and the Emergence of Fields: Historical and Classical

remains from much earlier people who lived European style and it still is a most active
before writing was invented. tradition in the USA. It was and in a way still is
Until the 1930s at least, archaeologists concerned with studying the Western tradition,
working in Europe were using philological and rooted in the both the Middle East through
historical tenets in archaeological interpretations, Judaism and Christianity and in the Greek and
particularly in historical or protohistorical Roman classical heritage.
contexts, such as Flinders Petrie, Gustaf Prehistoric archaeology though was from the
Kossinna, and Gordon Childe. However, the start concerned with the other (Hartog 1988), native
role of writing has been challenged from different inhabitants of the continent, taken as completely
quarters, from the early twentieth century. First foreign to the civilized American cultural milieu. It
and foremost, the influx of social theory revealed was thus only too natural that archaeology in this
the relevance of other sources of knowledge and vein was taken as part of the discipline concerned
questioned the well-established pivotal role of with the other, anthropology. While linguistics
writing (Burke 2006). studied Indian languages, biological anthropology
This move affected archaeology by studied bodies, social anthropology studied living
emphasizing identity issues (Kristiansen 2009). Indians, and archaeology was to explore dead
Archaeology has moved to pay attention not only Indians through their remains. The American
to distant civilizations but turned also to more Anthropological Association was established
direct national roots, turning to the Anglo-Saxon in 1902.
in Britain, to Germans in Germany, to Vikings It is thus clear that the archaeological study of
in Scandinavia, or to the Celts and Iberians in colonial and national sites in the USA developed
Spain. It is thus possible to conclude that in only lately. It started as the archaeology of
the European tradition historical archaeology historical sites still very much concerned with
emerged from a number of epistemological and some national iconic sites. It was only in the
political issues: the pivotal role of writing and the 1960s, thanks not least to the influx of Roman
role of a historical framework in interpretation. In archaeology as practiced in Britain, that historical
this tradition, historical archaeology studies us, archaeology took root in the country, searching
the civilized people, producers of learned culture for the equivalent of Romans, that is, the first
as expressed in writing, and it is thus linked to introducers of writing and civilization to the
nationalist and imperialist contemporary interests land: the early Anglo-Saxon settlers of America.
and concerns. The conflict of different nation The Society for Historical Archaeology was
states in Europe led also to interpretive conflicts, established in 1967 and in 1989 the AIA, the
such as the different identification and interpre- American Schools of Oriental Research, and the
tation of Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic remains. Society for Historical Archaeology held the first
Historical archaeology in the European tradition Joint Archaeological Congress, further strength-
has been rooted in modern identity issues and to ening the link of historical archaeology
national pride and prejudice. concerned with modern roots and the other
archaeological institutions equally in search of
Historical Archaeology in the American Tradition American and Western civilizations.
In the United States, archaeology started in two
different ways. First, as in Europe, it was Changes in European and American Historical
established as the study of civilization. The Archaeology (1970s Onwards)
American Archaeological Institute was set up in Since the 1970s, historical archaeology in the
1879, and soon afterwards America was digging USA gained traction and increasingly broadened
in the Old World, as attests the American School its scope, as attests the seminal publication of
at Athens (1880) and the American School in James Deetz (1977). The original focus on
Rome (1895) and in Jerusalem (1899). Classical WASP material culture shifted gradually to
and oriental archaeology were thus in the same include other groups, such as African-Americans
Archaeology and the Emergence of Fields: Historical and Classical 411 A
(Orser 1988), and then a plethora of excluded Old World roots in the nineteenth century
subjects, including women, Chinese, and more. (Ferreira 2010) and then prehistoric archaeology
The publication of Eric Wolf’s classic in 1982 developed for nationalist purposes in countries A
signaled this trend towards the excluded and such as Mexico and Peru, but also in countries
beyond the traditional emphasis on written with less impressive prehistoric monuments. This
evidence for interpreting material culture. was the case in Argentina with its quest for the
Colonialism has thus also been put at the heart earliest human remains worldwide. The study of
of the discipline (Hicks & Beaudry 2006; Iberian settlements though developed late, as this
Kristiansen 2009). was mostly as a result of the influence of the
United States newly established field of historical
Historical Archaeology and Capitalism archaeology. However, while the USA was
According to Hicks and Beaudry (2006), Charles always a democratic country with a wide variety
E. Orser, and Mark Leone, among other of social movements, Latin America faced the
pioneering Marxist historical archaeologists, contradictions of the Cold War (1947–1989),
such as Randall McGuire, managed to define including dictatorships. Historical archaeology
historical archaeology as the study of capitalism developed late and at first as an empirical
and the resulting modernity and globalization. endeavor, in tune with the times. The waning of
The Annapolis Project (1981) is a clear case of authoritarian rule led to a freer and more diversi-
successful interpretation of material evidence as fied study of historical archaeology. The inclu-
part of the capitalist order of things. The project sion of the subaltern, such as maroons, slaves,
was also responsible for the study of the subal- and women, led to a growing social commitment
tern, as with the case of the remains of African of the discipline, culminating in the study of
slaves, workers, and exploited people. repression and the struggle for freedom
Orser (1996) produced a most convincing (Funari 2001; Funari et al. 2009). Two different
argument for historical archaeology as the study theoretical trends developed. Under the influence
of capitalism, spreading from Europe and uniting of the USA, historical archaeology has mostly
the whole globe. Capitalism was not only the been interpreted as the study of capitalism after
economic driving force, but it redefined the the arrival of the Europeans in the Americas.
whole set of social relations (Leone 1999). Others though were keen to explore how the
Power relations, domination and resistance, and historical experience in Latin American has
identity processes were among the subjects dealt been also patriarchal, hierarchical, and prone to
with through the identification of historical personal and patronage relations, as such the
archaeology and the study of capitalism. In recent importation of the concept of historical archaeol-
decades, under the influx of other interpretive ogy as the study of capitalism was not always
frameworks, most notably those criticizing useful. On the contrary, the specificities of
normative schemes, several scholars have refined noncapitalist features in Latin America necessi-
or even contradicted the overwhelming and tated the study of material culture through
totalizing power of capitalism. Some stressed different, local lenses (Funari et al. 1999). The
symbolic issues (Hodder 1995), class conflict diversity of approaches has fostered the interest
(McGuire 2008), and the role of writing (Little of people outside to understand it, discussing
& Shackel 2007; Johnson 2010). However, it such theoretical concepts as transculturation,
should be noted that some of those scholars patronage, and métissage among others.
were not American and this leads us to the role
of peripheral outlooks. Classical Archaeology
Classical archaeology was only recently affected
Historical Archaeology in Latin America by theoretical discussions in the discipline. At the
Archaeology in Latin America started very early conference celebrating the centenary of the
as it did in the United States, first as a search for Archaeological Institute of America, the leading
A 412 Archaeology and the Emergence of Fields: Historical and Classical

classical archaeologist Colin Renfrew (1980) identity in different contexts. The Gymnasium
pondered the three the most relevant (grammar school) was the basket of the intelli-
achievements of the institute: the extension of gentsia. Classical archaeology started as a search
the field of American archaeology in other areas for material evidence relating to classical litera-
and seasons, including the “ancient world”; the ture in the German-speaking principalities,
promotion of academic criteria for the discipline municipalities, and even empires (such as the
through its publications; and the creation of Austro-Hungarian), Greece and Italy, geographi-
a discussion forum in this institutional space. cal concepts in search of a nationality. It is no
Renfrew interpreted classical archaeology as coincidence that the 21st of April (date of the
part of the so-called great tradition of the Western foundation of ancient Rome) 1829, a number of
canon: the reading of classical literature in the scholars, artists, and diplomats founded in Rome
original and a philological approach to the world. the Istituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica,
We can add that this tradition was grounded on aiming at studying monuments of ancient art,
repetition, memorization, and description. The inscriptions, topography, and beyond. It was
past was always better than the present, as in transferred to Berlin, in Prussia, in 1832, becom-
other traditional cultures stressing past models ing imperial after the unification of Germany in
rather than aiming for innovation, such as is 1874. Several branches were established and
also the case with the traditional Chinese classical excavations spread throughout the
worldview. This led to classical archaeology Mediterranean.
being from the start mostly descriptive and German classical archaeology followed strict
lacking interest in theoretical issues. It was only procedures in terms of publications paying atten-
through the push of Anglo-Saxon anthropologi- tion first and foremost to complete catalogues
cal moves, first new archaeology in the 1960s and with the largest possible cross-references. It was
1970s and then post-processual archaeology, also subjected to nationalist and racist trends
from the 1980s, that it reacted in a creative way. from society and academia, such as the search
Let us turn to the main traditions of classical for superior Aryans and Indo-Germans: racist
archaeology. interpretations were widespread everywhere as
attested to, for example, in books by Vere Gordon
Traditions of Classical Archaeology Childe, not to mention more imperialist archae-
Over the last few decades, classical archaeolo- ologists such as Mortimer Wheeler, both foun-
gists from various parts of the world reacted to ders of the Institute of Archaeology, University
the challenge, rethinking their epistemological College London. In recent decades, classical
frames. We will study four main perspectives archaeology in German-speaking countries,
here: the German, English, Italian, and French. even if still keeping most of the array of learned
We start with the German, for it is the earliest and descriptions of sites and artifacts, is ever more
in a way the most traditional and probably also open to social theory, German style, meaning the
the most impervious to social theory issues, as the consideration of theories relating to religion, to
term is interpreted in the Anglo-Saxon world. economics, to iconography, and so on. This
acceptance of a specialized theoretical
German Tradition discussion is thus usually concerned not with
German classical archaeology predates the social theory in epistemological terms but with
country and refers not to Germany but to specific interpretive tools considered as useful for
German-speaking people. This is a key aspect of understanding specific sets of material culture.
classics and classical archaeology in the German
style: it is a culture area (Kulturkreis). Classics The English Tradition
played a unique role in German-speaking areas Classical archaeology started early in Britain, and
such as Prussia but also elsewhere. It was as with classics in general, it was mostly
a romantic way of fostering nationalism and influenced by German scholarship. It was,
Archaeology and the Emergence of Fields: Historical and Classical 413 A
however, from the start less obsessed with cross- movements. The French established archaeolog-
referencing ad nauseam and was open to social ical schools in the Mediterranean in the wake of
theory, as attested to by two of the leading the German ones, and the main German tenets A
icons of the discipline of archaeology, Gordon were also adopted, but the French style came with
Childe and Roger Collinwood. From those a reversion of roles. While the Germans searched
early-twentieth-century days dates also the for Aryans, the French looked for colonizers and
preoccupation with interpreting material culture civilizers, as if the ancient Greeks were the only
per se, not as mere parts of a narrative established early bearers of civilization standards (la mission
by ancient literature. This led to a late-twentieth- civilisatrice).
century emphasis on the interpretation of Renewal came from the 1960s due to several
material culture outside the framework of reasons, most notably French colonial setbacks.
classical literature (Snodgrass 1987) and The discipline was also concerned with the impor-
expanded the interpretation of periods before tation of field techniques, such as the Wheeler grid.
the use of writing, such as the Iron Age in several Most relevant has been the recent redefinition of the
parts of Europe. Later on, issues such as discipline as historical archaeology, as proposed by
colonialism, imperialism, and nationalism were Étienne, Müller, and Prost (1990). The use of mid-
used to study different classical subjects, such dle range theories from semiotics, religion studies,
as obscure periods of Greek history (Morris economics, and others is now much more common,
2000), so much so that for Morris (2000: 3) and anthropological issues are also apparent. Again,
“archaeology is cultural history or it is nothing.” this move is close to what happened in German-
The entangled relationship between past and pre- speaking countries and Italy, while a social theory of
sent and reception and interpretation has also wider scope is still usually sidelined.
been stressed by such classical archaeologists as
Richard Hingley and David Mattingly, using
medium range theory, German style, and episte- Future Directions
mological discussions about the discipline.
Historical archaeology and classical archaeology
The Italian Tradition developed in completely autonomous, indepen-
Italian classical archaeology has been similar to dent, and even contradictory ways. However,
the German tradition, since the early-nineteenth- they share some major concerns with the role of
century days. Filippo Coarelli (1994) explored writing and literary narratives in shaping the
the subject and concluded that historical understanding of material culture. They also
problems and narratives guided classical share issues relating to roots, identity, national,
archaeology on the one hand and on the other and imperial power, as well as how to deal with
stressed cross-referencing and description. Even the other, opposing civilization and barbarism. In
Marxist-inspired classical archaeology (e.g., recent decades, several scholars have been
Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, Mario Torelli, stressing the usefulness of a closer relationship
Andrea Carandini, and Daniele Manacorda) between all the archaeologies in general and
upheld both tenets. Today, classical archaeology particularly those studying societies using
in Italy has been subjected to social theory via writing, from the Mayas to Egypt, China, and the
Anglo-Saxon influences, but mostly it is the contemporary USA (Gosden 2004).Even more
German style of medium range theory of religion related are historical and classical archaeologies,
studies, economics, or even law studies which are for they share a common classical canon but also
most relevant. the criticism of this canon in recent decades. The
cross-fertilization of both fields has been going on
The French Tradition for a while and promises to grow in the future for
Classical archaeology in France was established the benefit of an informed archaeological
in the nineteenth century as a reaction to German approach to ancient and modern societies.
A 414 Archaeology and the Emergence of Fields: Maritime

Cross-References MESKELL, L. 1998. Introduction: archaeology

matters, in L. Meskell (ed.) Archaeology under fire:
1-12. London: Routledge Press.
▶ Archaeological Theory: Paradigm Shift MORRIS, I. 2000. Archaeology as cultural history: words
▶ Capitalism: Historical Archaeology and things in Iron Age Greece. Oxford: Blackwell.
▶ Classical (Greek) Archaeology NITECKI, M. & D. NITECKI. 1992. History and evolution.
▶ Historical Archaeology New York: State University of New York Press.
ORSER, C.E. 1988. The material basis of the Postbellum
Tenant Plantation: historical archaeology in the South
Carolina Piedmont. Athens: University of Georgia
References Press.
- 2001. A historical archaeology of the modern world.
BOURDIEU, P. 1988. Homo academicus. Translated by New York: Plenum Press.
P. Collier. Stanford: Stanford University Press. PATTERSON, T. 2001. A social history of anthropology in
BURKE, P. 2006. Variedades de história cultural. Rio de the United States. New York, Oxford: International
Janeiro: Civilização brasileira. Publishers.
COARELLI, F. 1994. L’archéologie classique dans la culture RENFREW, C. 1980. The great tradition versus great divide:
européenne d’aujourd’hui. Revue Archéologique archaeology as anthropology? American Journal of
2: 294-302. Archaeology 84: 287-98.
DEETZ, J. 1977. In small things forgotten: the archaeology SHANKS, M. 1996. Classical archaeology of Greece:
of early American life. New York: Doubleday. experiences of the discipline. London: Routledge.
ÉTIENNE, R., C. MÜLLER & F. PROST. 2000. Archéologie SNODGRASS, A.M. 1987. An archaeology of Greece: the
historique de la Grèce antique. Paris: Ellipses. present state and future scope of a discipline.
FERREIRA, L.M. 2010. Território primitivo: a Institucio- Berkeley: University of California Press.
nalização da Arqueologia no Brasil (1870-1917). WOLF, E. 1982. Europe and the people without history.
Porto Alegre: EDIPUCSRS. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
FUNARI, P.P.A. 2001. Public archaeology from a Latin
American perspective. Public Archaeology
1(4): 239-42. Further Reading
- 2002. Classical archaeology, in C.E. Orser, Jr. (ed.) ALCOOK, S.E. & R. OSBORNE. (ed.) 2007. Classical
Encyclopedia of historical archaeology: 108-11. archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
London: Routledge. CUNLIFFE, B., C. GOSDEN & R. JOYCE. (ed.) 2009. The
- 2005. Teoria e Métodos na Arqueologia. Mneme (Caicó. Oxford handbook of archaeology. London: Oxford.
Online) 5(13). HICKS, D. & M.C. BEAUDRY. (ed.) 2006. The Cambridge
FUNARI, P.P.A., M. HALL & S. JONES. (ed.) 1999. Historical companion to historical archaeology. Cambridge:
archaeology, back from the edge. London: Routledge. Cambridge University Press.
FUNARI, P.P.A., A. ZARANKIN & M. SALERNO. 2009. WHITLEY, J. 2001. The archaeology of ancient Greece.
Memories from darkness. New York: Springer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GOSDEN, C. 2004. Archaeology and colonialism.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HARTOG, F. 1998. The mirror of Herodotus. Berkeley: Archaeology and the Emergence
University of California Press.
HICKS, D. & M.C. BEAUDRY. 2006. Introduction: the place
of Fields: Maritime
of historical archaeology, in D. Hicks & M.C. Beaudry
(ed.) The Cambridge companion to historical archaeol- Jennifer F. McKinnon
ogy: 1-9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Program in Maritime Studies, East Carolina
KRISTIANSEN, K. 2009. The discipline of archaeology, in
University, Greenville, NC, USA
B. Cunliffe, C. Gosden & R. Joyce (ed.) The Oxford
handbook of archaeology: 3-46. Oxford: Oxford Department of Archaeology, Flinders University,
University Press. Adelaide, SA, Australia
LEONE, M.P. 1999. Setting some terms for historical Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology
archaeologies of capitalism, in M.P. Leone & P.
Inc., Adelaide, SA, Australia
B. Potter Jr. (ed.) Historical archaeologies of
capitalism. New York: Kluwer Academic and Plenun
Publishers.
LIGHTFOOT, K.G. 2006. Mission, gold, furs, and Manifest Introduction and Definition
Destiny, in M. Hall & S.W. Silliman (ed.) Historical
archaeology: 272-92. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
LITTLE, B. 2007. Historical archaeology: why the past Maritime archaeology in its most basic form is
matters. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. the study of material culture related to human