Published in: Historical archaeology from a world perspective, in P.P.A Funari, M. Hall & S. Jones (eds), Historical Archaeology, Back from the edge, Londres, Routledge, 37-66, 1999.

 

 

BACK FROM THE EDGE

 

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY FROM A WORLD PERSPECTIVE

 

Pedro Paulo A. Funari

 

INTRODUCTION

 

                               During the World Archaeological Congress 3 in New Delhi, India (4th-11th December, 1994), Martin Hall, Siân Jones and the author organized a theme on “Changing Perspectives on Historical Archaeology”, gathering papers on four main topics: exploring epistemological problems: questions of definition of the subject (organized by P.P.A. Funari); the plurality of material culture: race, ethnicity, tribe, class and gender (organized by S. Jones); archaeology an the representation of modern identities: national, colonial imperial (organized by Timothy Champion); feminist historical archaeology (organized by S. Spencer-Wood). Overall there were fifty papers from scholars all over the world, most of them now in this book as chapters dealing with a wide variety of historical periods, like ancient Palestine (Jones 1994), Roman Britain (Hingley 1994), early Medieval Ireland (Mytum 1994)  or contemporary Italian archaeology (Levi 1994), and comprising not only Europe and the United States but also Africa (e.g. Pikarayi 1994), Australia (e.g. Colley 1994), Asia (e.g. Mani 1994) and South America (e.g. Bárcena 1994). There emerged a clear divide between most United States scholars, concerned with European colonial societies from the period since the end of the fifteenth century, and Europeans and others who were ready to include in the historical archaeology label studies on Classical Athens (by an Australian, Zarmati 1994, and by an American, Small 1994), on Pre-Roman Iberian societies (by a Spaniard, Díaz-Andreu 1994) or on Pre-Modern India (Mani 1994). The first aim of this chapter is thus to discuss the epistemological implications of an international historical archaeology, a worldwide discipline whose features, purposes, and goals are very much subjected to debate.

 

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, AN AMERICAN DISCIPLINE

 

                               It is fair to say that there has been a longstanding  lack of communication between the two main archaeological traditions, European archaeology being linked to philology and history and American archaeology being an offspring of anthropology. As late as 1989, Bruce G. Trigger was keen to emphasize that European and United States archaeologists live in rather different academic contexts:

 

                               “Extraordinary as it may seem to those who have been trained in the Western European and Soviet tradition of archaeological research, history, both as a discipline and as a methodology, has always been viewed as largely irrelevant to prehistoric archaeology in the United States” (Trigger 1989: 19).

 

                               Earlier, just when the archaeology of historic sites was becoming the newly created “historical archaeology” discipline, Iain C. Walker, trained in Great Britain in prehistoric European archaeology, published in the first issue of Historical Archaeology a paper on methods and principles in historic archaeology and again chose to highlight the split between the two archaeologies:

 

                               “The major difference between the Old and the New World approaches to archaeology seems to the writer to be that while the latter is more concerned with classification and abstract concepts, the former is more concerned with ‘historical’ interpretation of prehistoric material. It is perhaps partly for this reason that ‘historic’ patterns in prehistory do not seem to be nearly as advanced here as those in Europe, and why in Britain and in modern Near and Middle Eastern excavations archaeology has come to mean much more than merely exacavation” (Walker 1967: 25).

 

                               Reading these comments, one is inevitably reminded of Evelyn Waugh’s  sense of humour when he said that “we are all American at puberty; we die French”, a if Europeans were naturally more ‘advanced’ and less ‘merely’ practical than the Americans. However, it was not by chance that a historical archaeology begun in the United States and that the use of the term is still very much confined to the  American tradition, rather than the European tradition, where different and more specific terms are used, like medieval, post-medieval, and so forth (note the use of historic by Walker in the title of his paper; cf. Austin n.d: 3). In the United States, prehistoric sites were easily distinguished from historical (Euroamerican, colonial, or postcolonial) sites, as were Native and American settlements, illiterate and literate societies, precapitalist and capitalist economies. These clear-cut binary oppositions should be linked to the realization by the Americans that just as there was a study of the material culture of Indians by prehistorians who looked for their way of life, there should be a historical preservation of our (i.e. Euroamerican) own heritage (Orser and Fagan 1995: 6). Native American villages were viewed as separate and distinct entities from European and European American settlements demanding different teams of specialist researchers (Lightfoot 1995: 202). From its inception, then, historical archaeology would not fit in the traditional anthropological framework of American archaeology, but on the contrary it inevitably established links with history and other related disciplines. Ivor Noël Hume (1969: 9; 13) in his pioneer book on the subject went so far as to directly relate Classics and History to the new discipline, as did almost simultaneously Robert Schuyler, when justifying its very existence:

 

                               “<First,> the past is worth studying as soon as it becomes in danger of being lost; second, the past of Roman Britain and Colonial America are being destroyed at much the same rate; third, the relics of Colonial America are to the United States what Roman remains are to Britain...I am not suggesting that anthropologists cannot be good historical archaeologists, only that initially they do not know the documentary sources essential to the study of historical artifacts”. (Schuyler 1970: 84).

 

                               From the start, then, historic sites archaeology was an interdisciplinary endeavor (Larrabe 1969: 71), coalescing history and archaeology (McKay 1976: 95), and encompassing ethnohistory, and ethnography (Kutsche et al. 1976: 13), aiming at transforming anthropology departments into material culture departments (Deetz 1977a: 12). It did not take long before the scope of historical archaeology research was braodened to include the study not only of elite heritage but also of ordinary people’s material culture, notably that of slaves (Ascher and Fairbanks 1971: 3). In the beginning of the 1990s, Barbara Little and Paul Shackel (1992: 4) considered that history was a vital element in historical archaeology interpretation and this marked a clear break with the overall anti-historical trend in prehistoric archaeology in the United States which is still pervasive (Randall McGuire, personal communication; cf. Rogers 1997: 159). This reinforces the divide between an anthropological prehistoric archaeology, on the one hand, and a more ambigous historical archaeology whose definition stresses the study of the post-prehistoric period (Orser  and Fagan 1995: 14) and which is considered as an historical discipline (Potter  n.d.: 5) . The clear-cut prehistoric/historic periods divide, traditional in the United States scholarship and often reinstated by prehistorians and historical archaeologists alike, would however struck scholars elsewhere.

 

 

THE EUROPEAN OUTLOOK

 

                               Archaeology in Europe sprang from antiquarianism and art history (Carandini 1979: 34-48), on the one hand, and from Philologie and Altertumswissenschaft, on the other (Champion 1990: 89). In many instances settlements were occupied continously from at least the Late Iron Age up to the present day, with easily distinguishible but at the same time superimposed Roman, Medieval and Modern structures. If our ancestors in the United States were the pilgrims, French children used to sing about their ...Gallic forefathers! - Les Gaullois, nos fières aieux...- Perhaps the best word to describe the European perception of the past is concretion, as change is viewed as part of a continous process of adding new elements. The same French child of supposed Gallic descent would not be shocked by the fact that Charlemagne did speak Old German and was crowned Roman emperor! Continuity is thus a password for the European Weltanschauung (Stierle 1979: 106), and it is symptomatic that Braudel’s (1969) “long term” or  longue durée concept would gain overwhelming acceptance in the Old World (cf. Schulin 1987, for a German overview on the subject) and beyond (cf. Miceli 1995).

 

                               From the start, archaeology in Europe has been a philological discipline in two interrelated ways. First and foremost, the study of prehistoric, protohistoric or later sites in Europe depends on commanding the knowledge of languages used in ancient written documents to describe them: Greek, Latin, and then modern vernacular tongues. So, the much quoted words of Mortimer Wheeler (1956: 17), that the archaeologist is digging up people, not things, are followed by a Shakespearean quote: “Of our scraps and pieces we may say, with Mark Antony in the market-place, ‘You are not wood, you are not stones, but men’” (from Julius Caesar, act III, 149). There is, however, no explicit reference to Shakespeare and an elaboration on Mark Antony as an historical character! In the same notable book, Wheeler (1956: 236) made a pledge for a humanistic approach to the discipline for the archaeologist must not be a “mere homunculus”, a contemptuous manikin. Again, there is no translation, as it is assumed that the Latin derogatory term should be known: classics should be a common background all over the western world (Rowse 1948:  162). Archaeology has been philological in another essential way too, in its methods, as it tries to read artifacts, art works and layers. The social world is polysemous (Shanks and Hodder 1995: 8) and archaeologists must read texts, material and written alike (Austin and Thomas 1990: 45). All terms with clear philological overtones.

 

                               History itself sprung from philology and any historian eo ipso must be able to read written documents, be they in Latin or in Old English. The same applies to the archaeologist, as history is a unified discipline and documentary and archaeological evidence must be assessed in tandem (Webster 1986: 156). Throughout Europe, then, archaeology’s closest intellectual ties are with history (Hodder 1991: 10; cf. Olivier and Coudart 1995), even considering that in the last decades archaeology developed as an independent field as the study of material culture (cf. Klejn 1995: 40). History itself is increasingly anthropological in character, and anthropology is becoming more historical, in that both disciplines focu on  ordinary people’s culture (Gourevitch 1991: 135), a traditional feature of archaeology and its study of common pottery and stone tools.  History, archaeology and anthropology increasingly refelct the narrative character of science (Ulin 1994; Shanks and McGuire 1996: 82) as well as its subjective and poetic features: ein Mischwesen aus Wissenschaft und Kunst, “science and art at the same time” (Strasburger 1966: 55; cf. Maier 1984).

 

                               The emphasis on the study of languages led European archaeology to be characterized by historic periods alongside geographical specializations, like Classical, Prehistorical, Biblical, Egyptian, Medieval or Industrial archaeologies, even though early on certain individuals such as Childe or Wheeler would not limit their interests to one period and area alone; a minority continue to cross the border between different specializations (e.g. Shanks 1993; Funari 1993). The archaeology of Medieval and Post-Medieval periods developed recently and  Carandini probably offered the best European definition of these disciplines:

 

                               “We have prehistoric, classical, medieval and post-medieval archaeologies. They are defined, as we can see, by the main periods of our history: from community village, through the ancient city to the precapitalist town. Following this historic reasoning, industrial archaeology cannot be defined except as the archaeology of capitalist social societies” (italics in the original). (Carandini 1979: 322-323).

 

                               Each time period, with different modes of production, should thus be dealt with by a different branch of archaeology (prehistoric, classical, medieval, post-medieval and industrial; e.g. Kobylinski 1996; Musin 1996; Represa 1996). However, if this was the succession of historical periods in Europe, the scheme would not necessarily apply to the whole world. So, the leading Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1979: 86) emphasised that “ancient”, “medieval” and even “modern” periods would not apply world over, and followed Marx (1964) in suggesting that Asia did not witness true capitalism until  a very late stage:

 

                               “In China, the absolute monarchy was established in 221 BC and continued up to 1912, even though there were different dynasties, foreign invasions and so on. This is the interesting point: every new ruler finds the ruling framework already in place, seizing it as he takes over the central power” (Gramsci 1979: 115; cf. a modern discussion in Larsen 1989).

 

 Gramsci was also following the steps of John Stuart Mill (1985: 136), who considered that “the greater part of the world has, properly speaking, no history, because despotism of custom is complete. This is the case over the whole East”. Privileges prevailed even in Europe for the whole Modern Period, up to the late eighteenth century (Cobban 1961). The Marxist French historian  Albert Soboul (1965: 5) considered that in France the 1789 “Revolution signs the inception of the bourgeois and capitalist society, destroying the seigneurial regime and the feudal ranks” (cf. Lefebvre 1970: 6-61). In general terms, modern bourgeois capitalist societies inextricably tied to two main classes, capitalists and waged workers (Spinella 1978: 11), again a fairly recent development in world history and the word “capitalism” itself enters the English vocabulary as late as the 1860s (Hobsbawm 1985: 13; cf. Williams 1988: 51).

 

                               It is in this context that we should consider the traditional labeling of archaeologies in Europe. So,  Medieval archaeology, which made its first appearance in the nineteenth century (La Rocca 1993: 40-1; Yanine 1983), would only really take off in the last decades of this century and post-medieval sites became a focus of research at an even later date (cf. Riu 1989, on the Catalonian case). The first analytical study of eighteenth-century archaeological material from Rome was carried out by classical archaeologists in the 1980s (Manacorda 1984: 10). Medieval archaeology is now well established from Portugal (cf. Fontes 1992) to Russia (Tchernov, personal communication; cf. Tchernov 1996), and industrial archaeology developed rapidly as “the social history of the working class” (Cerdà 1991: 420), reaching most European countries (cf. Nunes 1994), but post-medieval and preindustrial archaeology lagged behind, with the exception of Renaissance pottery studies (Lester and Lester 1976; Bandini, G. et al. 1995; Battaglia, L. et al. 1995). A recent conference at the British Museum on “The Age of Transition - The Archaeology of English Culture 1400-1600” gathered scholars  interested on the subject and the organizers where keen to recognize that:

 

                               “The years between 1400 and 1600 represent a period of transition in both the material life and mentality of most Europeans. Regretably, with traditional demarcation lines rigidly separating the historical study of medieval and post-medieval society, this epoch is rarely treated as a whole, with the result that only aspects of cultural change have received attention, frequently in isolation from each other. This conference will challenge that divide, and will evaluate the contribuition of archaeology to the question of continuity and change” (Societies  1996, 2:  15).

 

                               Thus, even if disciplinary boundaries continue to hold, there is a growing demand for the synthetic study of society, incorporating archaeology, history, anthropology, classical philology (Kristiansen 1995: 143) and other disciplines. The trend is towards historizising both scientific interpretive frameworks and at the ‘invention’ of evidence, as understood by Shanks and Hodder (1995: 11), both ‘finding’ new evidence and ‘creative power’ of understanding it, as it is proposed by the French social scientist Pierre Bourdieu:

 

                               Es handelt sich darum, methodisch und systematisch eine doppelte Historisierung zu volziehen. Erstens eine Historisierung des Subjekts der Geschichtsforschung, d.h. seiner Konzepte und Klassifikationschemata...zweitens, eine Historisierung der analysirten ‘Daten’...(“There is a need for a double historicization: first, a historical contextualization of the historical research, i.e. of its concepts and classifications schemes...second, a historical contextualizaation of the analysed ‘evidence’)  (Bourdieu 1996: 79; cf. Caro Baroja 1983: 19).

 

European postprocessual or contextual archaeology, developed in the last fifteen years or so,  is thus an interdisciplinary endeavour (Miller and Tilley 1966: 5-6) and the boundaries break down not only between disciplines but between the different archaeologies. The simultaneous study of Classical Athenian and United States cemeteries is a good example of the growing interest in overcoming old divisions and producing innovative results (Small 1994; Small 1995). A symposium on “Americanist approaches to the late prehistoric and early medieval European archaeology”, at the 62nd SAA Annual Meeting, in Nashville, Tennessee, 1997 also reflects the increasing interest in overcoming the American/European traditional divide (SAA, 1997: 23).

 

ARE THERE PERIPHERAL OUTLOOKS?

 

                               North American and European outlooks are hegemonic worldwide and it is fair to say that the rest of the world tries  to emulate the scholarly developments in these two scientific cores. Asia and Africa are  naturally closer to European archaeology (cf. the book edited by Peter Ucko 1995), because of the continuity of their history, from late prehistoric times up to the present day, and also because of the influence of the former imperial powers. South African archaeologist Aron Mazel’s arguments for a historical approach to prehistory, whilst acknowledging American theoretical contributions to the the study of the subject, is probably a good example of African and Asian preferences for an European historical outlook: “the end must be historical and all else used as a means to this end” (Mazel 1989: 28).  For Latin America, the picture is less clear-cut, as the overwhelming  prestige of American science is counterbalanced by European inroads (Prous 1994; Funari 1995; Politis 1995). Latin America is however the only other part of the world where the term ‘historical archaeology’ is commonly used by archaeologists to refer to the post-prehistoric period (from the fifteenth century onwards), as pre-European and colonial settlements are easy to distinguish from one another (cf. Fahmel 1997). However, the clear-cut binary oppositions prevailing in the United States were not present in Latin America, for the catholic Conquistador was no puritan pilgrim and the Indians were not foreigners in their own land but slaves, or dependent workers. Even though generalizations are always misleading, the contrast between  North American protestant and Iberoamerican catholic outlooks and social practices should not be underestimated. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies the mixed population lead to the continued use of  “Prehistoric” tools  for a long time after the arrival of the Europeans, not only in the hinterlands but at the heart of the colonial world itself, in towns and landed properties (cf. Ximena 1995: 101-104). The only regional school of archaeological theory in Latin America, the so-called Latin American Social Archaeology, considers archaeology as an historical discipline (Fonseca 1990), but does not oppose prehistoric and historic periods, and, as a consequence, prehistoric and historical archaeologies are treated together (cf. Vargas 1990: 7-18). Most archaeologists studying historical sites and subjects do work as prehistorians too (e.g. Kern 1994a on prehistory and 1994b, on historical archaeology; López n.d.; Fahmel 1993, inter alios; an overview in Funari 1994).

 

THE REVOLUTIONARY RÔLE OF CAPITALISM AND A POSSIBLE INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK

 

                               From this fragmented picture, is it possible to claim a universal character for historical archaeology? The most comprehensive and articulate argument for a global historical archaeology has just been formulated by Charles E. Orser (1996), who has argued for a definition of the discipline as the study of the modern world, characterized by a single economy that is colonial, international and expanding. It is argued that here are four key concepts defining this new reality:  global colonialism, eurocentrism, capitalism, and modernity, all interrelated developments impossible to disentangle from one another. In the Marxist tradition, world history is considered as being divided in two different epochs, capitalism and precapitalism:

 

                               “The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities, generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development” (Marx 1973: 74).

 

                               Following this outlook, the two periods should consequently be studied by different specialists, historical archaeologists on the one hand, and a variety of scholars on the other (prehistorians, classical, medieval archaeologists, mayanists, egyptologists and so forth). This division is explained by the fact that capitalism is one system, but precapitalism is particularistic, communal society being different from ancient slavery and from medieval serfdom. Carandini adopted a similar definition although he preferred a later division, equating capitalism with the industrial revolution (cf. below). Only capitalism, then, is coherent and therefore can be understood on a  worldwide scale on the basis of a single logic. Historical archaeology is thus considered to be a multidisciplinary field linked to anthopology and history, which deals with the post-prehistoric past, and seeks to understand the global nature of modern life (Orser and Fagan 1995: 14). Accepting that the practices of modern peoples can have long traditions that extended backward in time beyond the proposed beginning of the new era in AD 1415, it is nevertheless assumed within historical archaeology that most historical artifacts were commodities, objects created specifically for exchange (Orser and Fagan 1995: 18; 83; cf. a Marxist support for this periodization in Aguirre 1996: 77, among others).

 

                               From the beginning of the fifteenth century (cf. Chouraqui 1975: 35), then, it would be possible to say that capitalism was fast changing the face of the world and already at the early stages of colonization even remote settlements in the very fringes of empires used imported artifacts from very distant continents (Orser and Fagan 1995: 89; cf. Tchernov 1996: 84). Although the link between capitalism and historical archaeology had been established in the United States almost from the inception of the discipline, and developed by different authors (e.g. Deetz 1967b; Leone and Potter 1988: 4), Orser was the first to offer a complete framework for understanding the modern world, in terms of the direct and indirect influence of capitalism (contra Thurman 1996; cf. Deagan 1997; Johnson 1997). Africans in the Americas, enslaved Native Americans, large-scale tribal disturbances in Africa, the presence of European fortresses in Asia, Africa and the Americas, all this was the result of capitalism and could not be explained without it. Pottery from different parts of the world, found in distant places: as never before, this was one world,a world forged by capitalism and its agents, the Europeans (Orser 1996: 77). A single example would be enough to exemplify this standpoint: the so-called “Colono” ware pottery. Ivor Noël Hume (1962) defined as “Colono-Indian” pottery an unglazed low-fired earthenware in tidewater Virgina (USA), used in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but subsequently scholars have proposed that the pottery was also made by African slaves and Indians (Lees and Kimery-Lees 1979: 11) and this suggests that it was the material result of both peoples struggles against colonialism and Eurocentrism (Orser 1996: 121). Colono-ware, even though non-European in typology, could not be African, nor Native America alone, it was the material product of a new world (Orser 1991: 116). It is argued then that this approach can cope with the specificities of the archaeology of the modern world. However, the complexity of the modern historical societies provides us challenging evidence of non-capitalist features which must be explored in the next section.

 

NON-CAPITALIST FEATURES OF THE MODERN WORLD: LATIN AMERICA, A CASE IN POINT

 

                               The leading modern economic historian, Ruggiero Romano, is one of the most qualified and coherent supporters of an interpretive framework stressing the continuities from medieval to modern times. In a by now classic paper on American feudalism, Romano proposed that:

 

                               “The two feudalisms (European and American) existed, but differed. American feudalism <had> four elements: (a) an economy without (or with an insufficient) monetary base; (b) an economy without (or with insufficient) freedom of access to or withdrawal from the (labor) market; (c) the same in the case of the commodity market; (d) an economy not supported by a large an dependable interior market”. (Romano 1984: 131-132).

 

                               In Europe itself, during the first centuries of the moderna era, in the so-called Mercantilist period, there continue to be several feudal hindrances to freedom of movement, as people and commodities were restricted by local and national barriers (cf. Florenzano 1996: 23). The King of Spain could forbid from 1552 to 1559 the export of Spanish textiles, just to try to stop the increase in their prices. Later still, in 1685, 90% of the consumer price of wood going from Dresden to Hamburg by boat in the river Elbe was due to feudal taxes and customs, and the trip itself would last four times what it could, were it not for the local lords whose customs offices delayed movement of people and commodities (Deyon 1989: 28; 50). Rent-collecting lordship continued to exhert extraeconomic means of control on the peasants, further supplemented by complementary means of social, rather than strictly economic,  influence in society in general (Toch 1986: 165). Even the accumulation of capital in the hands of merchants tended to be invested in land, reinforcing non-capitalist rural relations (Bernardo 1995: 450-451). Medieval institutions continued to prevail in the Modern World (McIIwain 1941) and ordinary people and elites did preserve a non-capitalist, premodern Weltanschauung (Mauro 1970: 352) and, thus, non-capitalist modes of economic behavior.

 

                               The economy of premodern times, from the fifteenth to the mid eighteenth century, should be considered as essentially precapitalist, both in Europe and in the colonial world, in the opinion of several scholars (Cardoso and Brignoli 1983: 73). In Eastern Europe there was increased restriction on freedom of movement from the mid fifteenth century, reinforcing serfdom, whose abolition would be delayed for some centuries. Fiefs continued to prevail in many European regions in the seventeenth century, like in southern Italy (cf. Lepre 1981). In the Americas, the colonial slave mode of production by definition could not be capitalist (Gorender 1978; Cardoso 1982; cf. Beozzo 1978: 287). Relations of production in Latin America were not capitalist (Chaves 1996: 132) and served, on the one hand, to increase the primitive acumulation of capital in some countries but, on the other, reinvigorated feudal, or at least non-capitalist, domination in the Iberian Pensinsula (Wittman 1969: 81). Even the capture of slaves in Africa should be interpreted as a continuation of late medieval practices: when, by 1433, Henry the Navigator authorized the seizure of slaves in the regions surrounding Cape Bojador, it was soon followed by a demand for one fifth of the revenue earned in the slave trade, and slave commerce was thus embedded in the Portuguese fiscal system (Miskimin 1975: 162).

 

                               Probably, the most accomplished characterization of the premodern features of Latin America was carried out by Mexican medievalist Luis Weckmann (1992; 1993), whose books on Mexico and Brazil provide extensive and detailed analysis of feudal continuities. Let us turn our attention to Brazil, considering that in Mexico as elsewhere in Hispanic America economy and society were affected by an important Indian presence from the inception of colonial rule up to the present day (Odália 1974: 58); the consequences of this will be briefly mentioned later. Colonial Brazil owned not only its very name to Medieval mythology, as the Isle of Brazil was located in Medieval maps to the west of Ireland from AD 1325, but also some important features: town councils; the cult of the Virgin; the medieval social structure (manorial property, nobility, the Order of Christ, morgadio, or eldest son birthrights; encomiendas); church institutions, music, dances and games; administrative and commercial rules; technology; scholasticism; popular Christian devotion (Weckmann 1993: 18).

 

                               Precapitalist relations would continue for the centuries to come (Chilcote 1991: 30; Gadelha 1989: 155). Raimundo Faoro (1976: 20-25), even though he did not accept to characterize Brazil as feudal, proposed that a non-capitalist patrimonial system prevailed and Francisco Iglésias (1974: 260) considered that “the administration of Portuguese Brazil involved a transplantation of institutions which had begun and developed over the centuries in Europe”. The landlord was a pater familias, head of a patriarchal extended family (Einsenberg 1983: 124), and it is thus no surprise to find out that in a sixteenth-century  document Pereira Coutinho would describe his property as “my own  fief” (Weckmann 1993: 98; cf. Schwartz 1988: 218). The seignorial ethos was not concerned with profit nor was it guided by entrepreneurial rationality, but aimed at satisfying subjective needs relating to honor and prestige (Ferlini 1991: 36): “sometimes, only one generation is enough to transform a merchant into a sugar cane landlord” (Mattoso 1983: 17). Franchise, the granting of privileges (Alden 1970: 35; Batista 1995),  and personal  subordination (Vianna 1987: 130; Andrade 1996: 161) are all European feudal terms which remain in everyday use in Brazil to describe social relations, to the astonishment of foreign observers (Samara 1991: 10-11; Diffie 1970: 3; Ferlini 1986: 150-160; cf. the “surprise” noted by Kuznesof 1983: 184 and Da Matta 1983: 184). For centuries ordinary people were considered as vassals (Velho 1996). Some argue that African slavery in the Americas was the result of this non-capitalist outlook, for it was the inability of colonists to conceive of Europeans as chattel slaves which forced them to enslave non-Europeans (Eltis 1993: 1422).

 

                               The Catholic roots of colonization stem from its characterition as a crusade (Lacombe 1985: 52) and priests and colonists alike were prone to mysticism, with special attention to monstrous creatures and the Devil (Nogueira 1984: 87-98; Carrato, p. 122; Araújo, p. 145; cf. Morrone and Fortino, 1996, p. 76), as well as to the devotion to Saints (Gaeta 1995: 17; Campos 1987: 21; Mott 1994: 44-59). Indians were understood in the classic and medieval traditions (Lestringant 1994). This catholic background would go a long way to explain the differences between the non-egalitarian ideology in Brazil and elsewhere in Hispanic America, on the one hand, and the United States bourgeois rationality, on the other (cf. Azevedo 1995; Azevedo 1996). The emphasis on continuity from the Middle Ages is overwhelming, not only in such authors like Gilberto Freyre, who proposed the so-called lusotropicological approach (cf. Bastide 1972: 228-238; cf. Briggs 1997), but even Marxist and materialist authors admit the importance of non-capitalist features in  post-colonial and to some extent contemporary Brazilian society (Alencastro 1992). Richard Graham (1990) proposes that patronage was pervasive in the nineteenth century (cf. Graham 1970: 222; Neves 1991; Toledo 1996) and the patriarchal structure is still dominant today, with strong seignorial overtones, if we are to accept the analyses of several scholars, most of them Marxist in outlook (e.g. Fernandes 1995; Da Matta 1991; Chauí 1992; Ianni 1978; 1980).

 

                               If we turn now our attention for a while to Hispanic America, we find most of these features (cf. Roniger 1987: 75-6) compounded by the persistence of Native American economic, social and cultural features. The social and cultural creolization of ordinary Hispanic Americans, through the imponderabilia of daily interactions with their Native American neighbours, often ignored by most archaeologists, is of capital importance (Snows 1997:162). So,  archaeological studies established that some areas continue to use a precolonial pattern of animal consumption, while others preferred Old World taxa, in both instances, however, continuing Native American or Iberian modes of subsistence and associated traditions (de France 1996: 44-45). The mix of Native American and European material culture is pervasive and ubiquitous (e.g. Araujo 1996). Thousands of tons of documents in Spanish and Latin are still to be studied (Lee and Markman 1977: 57), as are Maya ghyphs and thus the prehistory/history distinction is still more blurred than elsewhere (cf. Chase and Chase 1996:  810). In this context, would then the definition of a world historical archaeology as the study of capitalism to be a non sequitur?

 

 

TOWARDS A WORLD PERSPECTIVE

 

                               In 1955, an archaeologist found at Tarragona, in Eastern Spain, a sink in marble, probably used in the Synagogue, bearing a trilingual inscription, in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, a menorah or candelabrum in the center, the tree of life, two peacocks and a shofar, the sacred horn (Cantera and Millás 1956: 350-354; López 1986: 54; FIGURE 1). The inscription in Hebrew reads “Peace to Israel, and to us, and to our children”, in Latin Pax Fides or “Peace Faith”; the Greek letters are unclear. Although undated, it was probably of early medieval date (seventh century AD).  In the Cathedral of Seville, there is a key, which, according to the local tradition, was offered to King Fernando III, when he came into Seville for the first time in the 23rd of November, 1248, soon after the conquest of the town by Castillan troops. An inscription in Spanish reads “God will open <and> the King will come in”, and another one in Hebrew reads “the king of kings will open, the king of the whole land will come in” (Cantera and Millás 1956: 385-387; FIGURE 2). At the Palma de Mallorca Cathedral there are two rimmonim or pomegranates, which have been stored there since at least 1634, used originally to store the Torah. One of the Hebrew incriptions states that they were “in the Synagogue of the Jewish, at Camarata”, and thus they are most probably derived from a Sicilian temple. The artefacts were used before  the 12th of January 1493, when the Jews were expelled from Sicily, and the style of the rimmonim is influenced by Arab, Eastern and Byzantine traits (FIGURE 3). These artefacts testify to continuity and change at the same time, having in common the fact that they were used in three different multicultural contexts. The sink was part of a late ancient oikoumene, in which the Synagogue was part of a Roman and Byzantine Mediterranean; the key was offered to a Spanish Christian king by a Jewish community which had lived with Muslims for some centuries; and the pomegranates were part of a late Medieval Mediterranean world which comprised Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Jews, and Muslims.

 

                               There were thus, long before the discovery of the Americas by the Europeans, different multicultural worlds, starting with the Mediterranean oikoumene (FIGURE 4), whose extension and trading links were far-reaching during the premodern period (Wheeler 1955). “Granted that the Roman Empire was a preindustrial society - it nonetheless exhibits signs of complexity, order, and system in its institutions, to an extent which makes labels like ‘primitive’ inappropriate unless they are carefully qualified” (D’Arms 1981: 13). Roman society was not a “market society”, a society in which producers were dependent on the market for the access to the means of life, labor, and self-reproduction, and subject to market imperatives (cf. Wood 1994: 25). However, there was a wide-reaching Roman economy: throughout Roman history cost and profit have been carefully taken into account (Nicolet 1988: 275). The importance of the market place in the Roman world  has been clearly demonstrated through studies focusing on local markets  local markets or nundinae show (Gabba 1988: 144-149), and especially archaeologists noticed the diversity of artefact transportation variety (e.g. Remesal 1982), and the constraints placed on settlement patterns by the demands of circulation and exchange (Corbier 1991: 629). Estates could calculate “profit”and “loss” and the accounting system was designed and used in the the context of economically rational management (Rathbone 1993: 387; cf. Kehoe 1993: 483). However,  if there was a free market (de Salvo 1992: 69), Roman wageworkers were not necessarily free people (Bürge 1990: 135). The supply of different consumption products was not completely governed by market forces and the rôle of the Roman state was decisive (Funari 1996: 85).

 

                               After the political breakdown of this oikoumene, the Mediterranean continued to act as a locus for cultural exchange and communication and if the unity of the ancient world continued after the Germanic invasions (pace Pirenne 1939), the northwards shift of Europe’s focus from the Carolingians onwards (White 1962: 76-78) did not shatter the cultural Meriterranean koine  which enabled the production of the three Jewish artefacts, mentioned earlier,  in the Medieval period (Lombard 1955: 71). However, less than a century after the expulsion of Jews from Southern Europe, they continued their practices in America, interacting now with Native Americans and Subsaharan Africans (Andrade 1962: 59). The world was much larger than the old Mediterranean oikoumene and there were new raw materials and products and new concepts in action (cf. Koselleck 1985: 87). The so-called scientific revolution of the Modern Era, significantly also known as the scientific renaissance, because of its classical roots (Boas 1962), was linked to trading, as Florentine measures in exchange with those of other towns illustrate (FIGURE 5; Baxhandall 1988: 52). Leonardo da Vinci himself in chapter 29 of his Trattato della Pittura denies the old scholastic belief that only abstract sciences are worthwhile and Leonardo supports ‘experience’ as a valid activity:

 

                               “To me it seems that those sciences are vain and full of error which are not born of experience, mother of all certainty, first-hand experience which in its origins, or means, or end has passed through one of the five senses...true sciences are those which, impelled by hope, have been penetrated by the senses so that the tongues of argument are silenced. They are not nourished on the dreams of investigators, but proceed in ordely sequence from the first true and established principles through successive stages to the end; as is shown by the elements of mathematics, that is to say number and measure, called arithmetic and geometry, which with complete truth treat of quantities both discontinous and continous. In them one does not argue if twice three make more or less than six, or that the angles of a triangle are less than the sum of two right angles: all argument is reduced to eternal silence, and those who are devoted to them can enjoy them with a peace which the lying sciences of the mind can never attain” (in Clark 1973: 84-85; cf. Barone 1996).

                                 

                                But experience itself was part of the classical, as opposed to scholastic, thought (Kristeller 1943) and, of course, “the Renaissance was essentially an age of transition, containing much that was still medieval, much that was recognizably modern, and, also, much that, because of the mixture of medieval and modern elements, was peculiar to itself” (Ferguson 1971: 16). Tolstoi describes this situation of continuity and change with these notable words:

 

                               “Immediately the law of Copernicus was discovered and demonstrated the mere recognition of the fact that it was not the sun but the earth that moves destroyed the whole comography of the ancients. It might have been possible by refuting that law to retain the old conception of the movements of the heavenly bodies; but without refuting it it would seem impossible to continue studying the Ptolemaic worlds. Yet long after the discovery of the law of Copernicus the Ptolemaic worlds continued to be a subject of study” . (Tolstoi 1957: 1442).

 

                                The Modern period then could not be considered as feudal and precapitalist, but neither was it a rational, capitalist monlith (Mello e Souza 1996a). Continuity and change, local and global, tradition and innovation were features of the enlarged, one world, but also with local indentities and specificities (Phillips and Phillips 1992). The St. Francis of Assisi Church building in Ouro Preto, Minas Gerais, Brazil, designed by a local crafstman, Aleijadinho (FIGURE 6), is related to eclectic High European architecture, especially to Borromini (Zevi 1995: 32), but also to popular and even to African influences (Pifano 1996) and its study by historical archaeology must be both interdisciplinary and critical (Fernandez 1997; cf. Mello e Zouza 1996b); the same would apply for the study of  eigheenth century votive offerings (Castro 1996), of rural vernacular architecture in southern Brazil and northern Italy (Posenato 1987) or German material culture in southern Brazil (Tamanini 1995). However, would it be possible to avoid studying Greek and Roman town planning to understand Hispanic American towns? (FIGURES 7, 8, 9, 10,11,12; Contin and Larcamón1996; cf. Castillo 1996: 67). The same applies to a wide variety of subjects, like cloisters in Europe and the Americas (e.g. Del Negro 1997; Brian Durrans, personal communication). This way, classical archaeologists could be interested in the subject, as could post-medieval archaeologists or American historical archaeologists.

 

 

                                There was thus not only an adoption of European traits but also an adoption of African, Asian and American traits in Europe, and elsewhere, so that what was going on was a process of “transculturation” (Ianni 1996; cf. Barreto 1951: 68). This brings us to a possible world definition of historical archaeology. The original American definition, linking inextricably historical archaeology and the study of capitalism, could pose a problem, for capitalism emerged in different places in different moments and  only became dominant worldwide in recent times. Even if all archaeologists were to agree that historical archaeology is the study of the capitalist period, and this is by no means certain, probably most Americans would favor a fifteenth century starting point, while in Europe it is reasonable to suppose that many practitioners would prefer to equate capitalism and industrial revolution, continuing to distinguish other archaeologies devoted to specific historical periods. Elsewhere, the picture is even less clear, as probably neither Indian nor Chinese archaeologies would accept the American or the European outlooks. The Catholic Saint Paul’s Cathedral in Macao, China, even though similar to other church buildings the world over, shows certain local features, and could never be considered as proof that China was integrated in the world capitalist system (Shulin and Lin 1997: 15). Classical archaeology, on the other hand, refering as it does to Greek and Roman material culture, is meaningless in China, just as  the label, Medieval archaeology, is misleading,  if applied to China, as  ‘feudal’ society (770-221 BC) was followed by a unified Han dinasty China (Jian 1986), according to Chinese historians and archaeologists. The western scheme of ancient empires followed by medieval feudal fragmentation does not apply to China, as a ‘feudal’ preceded an empire. If we consider capitalism, usually associated in the West with modern era Protestatism, we also find that in China some scholars argued that a market mentality prevailed  much earlier than in Europe,  after the introduction of Buddhism and it does not depend on any European influence (Oxfeld 1992: 291). The prevailing European labels thus do not fit China’s history and their use worldwide seems untenable.

 

                               At this point, it would seem that there is little room for a world definition, as entrenched traditions are unlikely to bow to any all-encompassing compromises. Americans will not agree to include Medieval archaeology under the fold of historical archaeology, as there are no castles in the United States, nor will Europeans dissolve the specific identities of Medieval, Post-Medieval and Industrial archaeologies. Asians will not accept the use of either American or European labels. And yet, if there is no real medieval castle in the United States, there are plenty of ersatz Medievalizing and Classicizing material items. On the other hand, the lure of the word ‘capitalism’ is so strong everywhere, in Europe, Africa and Asia, so many countries are anxious to be accepted as ‘capitalist’, an archaeology of capitalism can be attractive.  In this context, and as contemporary science promotes pluralism (Baker 1990: 59; Haber 1996: 384), the mushrooming of different, sometimes contradictory, approaches in archaeology is only too natural (Dommasnis 1990: 30; Cohen 1991: 19; Preucel 1991: 14). A world approach to archaeology reveals how subjective archaeological labels and definitions have always been (Ucko 1989: xii), but if we recognize this subjectivity (Vann 1988) then we can discuss the different approaches and propose useful lines of communication and exchange between them. Instead of supposing that regional archaeological traditions would or should accept specific definitions, communication enables people to continue to act within their own scientific traditions and to profit from dialogue (cf. Petrilli 1993: 360).

 

                               A world perspective would not confine historical archaeology to the study of European expansion (DeCorse 1996: 19), or to an all-encompassing capitalist system (Little 1994: 17) and would be concerned with the material culture of literate societies, paying special attention to the relationship between artefacts and written documents in different societies, using texts and archaeology as complementary evidence (Kosso 1995: 194), as archaeological and documentary  sources pose similar and related problems of interpretation (Young 1988: 11), and as apparent discrepancies between textual and archaeological sources must always be addressed by all scholars concerned with literate societie (Alcock 1994: 257). Incorporating history as a critical element in a dialectical account of change (McGuire and Saitta 1996: 201; Saitta 1997: 8) does not preclude an overall multidisciplinary approach (Miller and Tilley 1996). Historical archaeology is particularly fit to study class divisions and exploitation (Saitta 1992:  889; Saitta 1994), giving a particularly direct accesss into the everyday lives of all members of society, not only elites, but also, peasants, merchants, slaves or poor people (Saitta 1995: 485), providing insights into ordinary people’s ethos (Deetz 1991: 6; Hall 1991: 78) and thus overcoming the one-sidedness of learned evidences (Paynter and McGuire 1991; Johnson 1992: 54). Subjects almost invisible in written documents are accessible through the study of material remains (Brown and Cooper 1990: 19), and a world historical archaeology should be in a good position to study the dynamic interactions between elites and non-elites, between vernacular and high-style (Paynter 1988: 409; Pendery 1992: 58).  Without abandoning the specificities of different intellectual fields and endeavours, dialogue would enable archaeologists to interact and to be in touch with approaches and outlooks which otherwise would continue to be ignored. This move would be to the detriment of the advancement of knowledge itself, for the understanding of the complexity (McGuire 1996) of society, its features and changes would only gain with a truly world perspective, pluralist and interdisciplinary.

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

                               I owe thanks to the following colleagues who forwarded papers (sometimes unpublished ones), exchanged ideas and helped me in different ways:  S. Alcock, D. Austin, C.M. Azevedo, J.R. Bárcena, J. Bernardo, E. De Decca, P.S. Del Negro, M. Díaz-Andreu, B. Fahmel, L.F.O. Fontes, A. Haber, O. Ianni, S. Jones, R. Hingley,  A. A. Kern, K. Kristiansen, S.T. Levi, K.G. Lightfoot, B. Little, J.M. López, D. Manacorda,  B.R. Mani, A.D. Mazel, R. McGuire, L. Miotti,  H. Mytum, J.P.A. Nunes,  C.E. Orser, Jr., I. Pikarayi, P.B. Potter, A. Prous,  J. Remesal, Jr., M. Rowlands, D. Saitta, P. Shackel, M. Shanks, D. Small, E. Tamanini, S. Tchernov, B.G. Trigger, P. Ucko, E.M. Wood, L. Zarmati. I must mention my gratitude for grants from the following institutions: World Archaeological Congress, Illinois State University, CNPq, FAPESP, CAPES, and FUNCAMP. My special thanks go to the friends who have read and commented the chapter,  Siân Jones, Brian Durrans and Bernd Fahmel; their criticisms were very useful, even though I am sure I did not address their concerns with different subjects dealt too briefly in the chapter. In any case,  the ideas presented here are my own, for which I am therefore solely responsible.

 

REFERENCES

 

Aguirre, C.A. 1986. El modo de producción feudal. Revista Mexicana de Sociología 48: 27-85.

Alcock, S.E. 1994. Minding the gap in Hellenistic and Roman Greece. In Alcock, S.E. and Osborne, R. (eds), Placing the Gods, Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece. Oxford, Claredon, 247-261.

Alden, D. 1970. Aspectos econômicos da expulsão dos Jesuítas do Brasil: nota preliminar. In Keith, H. and Edwards, S. (eds), Conflito e Continuidade na Sociedade Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro, Civilização Brasileira, 31-78.

Alencastro, L.F. 1992. Continuidade histórica do luso-brasileirismo. Novos Estudos Cebrap 32: 77-84.

Andrade, M.C. 1962. A Terra e o Homem do Nordeste. São Paulo, Brasiliense.

Andrade, M.C. 1996. A colonização e seus impactos sobre o meio-ambiente. In Azevedo, F. and Monteiro, J. (eds), Raízes da América Latina. São Paulo, Edusp,  155-168.

Araújo, A.M. 1977. Cultura Popular Brasileira. São Paulo,  Melhoramentos.

Araujo, C.R.M. 1996. Idiosincrasia y Arquitectura en México. Outros Olhares 1: 51-58.

Ascher, R. and Fairbanks, C.H. 1971. Excavation of a slave cabin: Georgia, USA. Historical Archaeology 5: 3-17.

Austin, D. n.d. Private and Public: an archaeological consideration of things. Lampeter, unpublished typescript.

Austin, D. and Thomas, J. 1990. The ‘proper study’ of medieval archaeology: a case study. In Austin, D. and Alcock, L. (eds), From the Baltic to the Black Sea. London,  Unwin Hyman, 44-78.

Azevedo, C.M. 1995. Abolitionism in the United States and Brazil. A comparative perspective. New York Garland.

Azevedo, C.M. 1996. Irmão ou inimigo: o escravo no imaginário abolicionista dos Estados Unidos e do Brasil. Revista USP 28: 96-109.

Baker, F. 1990. Habermas and the pathologies of modernity. In Baker, F. and Thomas, J. (eds), Writing the Past in the Present. Lampeter,  St David’s University College, 54-62.

Bandini,G., D’Avenza, F., Moioli, P., Scafà, R. and Sccaroni, R. 1995. The characterization of Renaissance pottery for the determination of provenance and manufactory. Studies on Ancient Ceramics. Barcelona. Generalitat, 225-227.

Bárcena, J.R. 1994. De la arqueología histórica a la arqueología como arqueología. World Archaeological Congress 3. New Delhi, unpublished typescript.

Barone, J. 1996. O Tratado da Pintura de Leonardo da Vinci e suas prncipais edições em acervos brasileiros. Revista de Arqueologia e História da Arte 2: 358-364.

Barreto, C. 1951. Povoamento e População. Política populacional brasileira Rio de Janeiro, José Olympio.

Bastide, R. 1972. Lusotropicology, race, and nationalism, and class protest, and development in Brazil and Portuguese Africa. In Chilcote, R.A. (ed.), Protest and Resistance in Angola and Brazil. Berkeley, University of California Press,  225-240.

Batista, P.N. 1995. Uma relação simbiótica. Folha de São Paulo, 11/30/95, 2, p.2.

Battaglia, L., Fabbri, B., and Nannetti, M.C. 1995. Review and technological study of the Renaissance majolica produced in Lombardy (Northern Italy). Studies on Ancient Pottery.  Barcelona, Generalitat,  219-223.

Baxandall, M. 1988. Painting and Experience in the Fifteenth Century Italy. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Beozzo, J.O. 1978. Resenha. Encontros com a Civilização Brasileira 1: 286-292.

Bernardo, J. 1995. Poder e Dinheiro. Do poder pessoal ao Estado impessoal no regime senhorial, séculos V-XV.  Porto, Afrontamento.

Boas, M. 1962. The Scientific Renaissance, 1450-1630. London, Harper and Row.

Bourdieu, P. 1996. Über die Beziehung zwischen Geschichte unde Soziologie in Frankreich und Deutschland. Geschichte und Gesellschaft 22: 62-89.

Braudel, F. 1969. Écrits sur l’Histoire. Paris, Flammarion.

Briggs, A. 1997. Um admirador inglês de G. Freyre, interview to Maria Lúcia García Pallares-Burke. O Estado de São Paulo 1/4/97, D, pp. 12-13.

Brown, K.L. and Cooper, D.C. 1990. Structural continuity in an African-American slave and tenant community. Historical Archaeology 24: 7-19.

Bürge, A. 1990. Der mercennarius und die Lohnarbeit. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 107: 80-136.

Campos, A.A. 1987. Considerações sobre a pompa fúnebre na Capitania das Minas Gerais, o século XVIII. Revista do Departamento de História da UFMG 4: 3-24.

Cantera, F. and Millás, J.M. 1956. Las Inscripciones Hebraicas de España. Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

Carandini, A. 1979. Archeologia e cultura materiale. Dai “lavori senza gloria” nell’antichità a una politica dei beni culturali. Bari, De Donato.

Cardoso, C.F.S. 1982. Agricultura, escravidão e capitalismo. Rio de Janeiro, Vozes.

Cardoso, C.F.S. and Brignoli, H.P. 1983. História Econômica da América Latina. Rio de Janeiro,  Graal.

Caro Baroja, J. 1983. Tecnología Popular Española. Madrid, Editora Nacional.

Carrato, J.F. 1989. Medievalidades mineiras nos tempos da Inconfidência: hospícios e romarias. Revista do Departamento de História da UFMG 9: 121-129.

Castillo, H. 1996. Presencia de lo griego en La Plata. Revista Museo 8: 67-69.

Castro, M.M. 1996. Ex-votos mineiros - As tábuas no ciclo do ouro. Rio de Janeiro, Expressão e Cultura.

Cerdà, M. 1991. Industrial archaeology and the working class. Arqueología Industrial, Valencia, 403-422.

Champion, T.C. 1990. Medieval archaeology and the tyranny of the historical record. In Austin, D. and Alcock, L. (eds), From the Baltic to the Black Sea. London, Unwin Hyman, 79-95.

Chase, A.F. and Chase, D.Z. 1996. More than kin and king. Current Anthropology 37: 808-810.

Chauí, M. 1992. Messianismo e autoritarismo são heranças da colonização. Folha de São Paulo, Mais!, 10/11/92, p.6.

Chaves, C.M.G. 1996. Especulação e monopólio no comércio mineiro colonial: um estudo sobre mercados pré-capitalistas. Varia Historia 16: 130-141.

Chilcote, R.H. 1991. Transição capitalista e a classe dominante no Nordeste. São Paulo, TA Queiroz/Edusp.

Chouraqui, A. 1975. L’État d’Israël. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Clark, K. 1973. Leonardo da Vinci. Harmondswrth, Penguin.

Cobban, A. 1961. A Modern History of France, volume 1: 1715-1799. Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Cohen, G.A. 1991. The future of dissillusion. New Left Review 190: 5-20.

Colley, S. 1994. Post-colonial Australian archaeology and Aboriginal history. World Archaeological Congress 3. New Delhi, unpublished typescript.

Contin, M.I. and Larmacón, E. 1996. De la Grecia clásica a la Pampa argentina. Revista Museo 8: 91-96.

Corbier, M. 1991. Cité, territoire et fiscalité. Epigrafia. Rome, École Française de Rome, 629-665.

Da Matta, R. 1983. Carnavais, malandros e heróis. Rio de Janeiro, Zahar.

Da Matta, R. 1991. Nepotismo, e jetinho brasileiro. Jornal da Tarde, Caderno de Sábado, 9/7/91, pp. 4-5.

D’Arms, J. H. 1981. Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Deagan, K. 1997. Review. American Antiquity 62: 163-164.

DeCorse, C.R. 1996. Historical Archaeology. African Archaeological Review 13: 18-21.

Deetz, J. 1977a. Material culture and archaeology - what’s the difference. In Ferguson, L. (ed.), Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Material Things. Washington,  Society for Historical Archaeology,  9-12.

Deetz, J. 1977b. In Small Things Forgotten: the archaeology of early American life. New York, Doubleday.

Deetz, J. 1991. Archaeological evidence of sixteenth and seventeenth century encounters. In Falk, L. (ed.), Historical Archaeology in World Perspective. Washington, Smithsonian Institution, 1-10.

De France, S. D. 1996. Iberian foodways in the Moquegua and Torata valleys of Southern Peru. Historical Archaeology 30: 20-48.

Del Negro, P.S. 1997. Monografia sobre a origem do mosteiro beneditino. Campinas, UNICAMP, unpublished typescript.

De Salvo, L. 1992. Economia privata e pubblici servizi nell’impero romano. I corpora naviculariorum. Messina, Samperi.

Deyon, P. 1989. O Mercantilismo. translated by Margarida Sérvulo Correia,Lisboa, Gradiva.

Díaz-Andreu, M. 1994. Gender symbolism an power in Iberian societies. World Archaeological Congress 3. New Delhi, unpublished typescript.

Diffie, B.W. 1970. Os ‘privilégios’ legais dos estrangeiros em Portugal e no Brasil do século XVI. In Keith, H. and Edwards, S. (eds), Conflito e continuidade na sociedade brasileira. Rio de Janeiro, Civilização Brasileira, 3-24.

Dommasnis, L.H. 1990. Feminist archaeology: critique or theory building. In Baker, F. and Thomas, J. (eds), Writing the Past in the Present. Lampeter, St David’s University College,  24-31.

Eltis, D. 1993. Europeans and the rise and fall of African slavery in the Americas: an interpretation. American Historical Review 98: 1399-1423.

Eisenberg, P. L. 1983. A escravidão nas Américas: Genovese em português. Revista Brasileira de História 6: 123-128.

Fahmel, B. 1993. El empleo de la brújula en el diseño de los espacios arquitectónicos en Monte Albán, Oaxaca, México: 400 a.C. - 830 d.C. Revista Española de Antropología Americana 23: 29-40.

Fahmel, B. 1997. Comentarios y sugerencia al trabajo de P.P.Funari. México, letter to P.P.A. Funari.

Faoro, R. 1976. Os Donos do Poder. Porto Alegre, Globo.

Ferguson, W.K. 1971. The reinterpretations of the Renaissance. In Wermeister, W.H. (ed.), Facets of the Renaissance. Los Angeles,  Southern California Press,  1-17.

Ferlini, V.L.A. 1986. A subordinação dos lavradores de cana aos senhores de engenho: tensão e conflito no mundo dos brancos. Revista Brasileira de História 12: 141-168.

Ferlini, V.L.A. 1991. Estrutura agrária e relações de poder em sociedades escravistas: perspectivas de pesquisas de critérios de organização empresarial e de mentalidade econômicas no período colonial. Revista Brasileira de História 22: 35-47.

Fernandes. F. 1995. Entrevista. Isto é 1350: 26-27.

Fernandez, D. 1997. Escritor francês elogia o barroco brasileiro. O Estado de São Paulo, 1/2/07, D, p.4.

Florenzano, M. 1996. Notas sobre tradição e ruptura no Renascimento e na primeira modernidade. Revista de História 135: 19-30.

Fonseca, O.M. 1990. A Arqueologia com História. Dédalo 28: 39-62.

Fontes, L.F.O. 1992. O norte de Portugal no período suevo-visigótico. Elementos para seu estudo. XXXIX Corso di Cultura sull’arte Ravennate e Bizantina: 217-248.

Funari, P.P.A. 1983. Graphic caricature and the ethos of ordinary people at Pompeii. Journal of European Archaeology 2: 133-150.

Funari, P.P.A. 1994. South American Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology in Latin America 2: 1-14.

Funari, P.P.A. 1995. Mixed features of archaeological theory in Brazil. In Ucko, P. (ed.), Theory in Archaeology, a world perspective. London, Routledge,  236-250.

Funari, P.P.A. 1996. Dressel 20 Inscriptions from Britain and the Consumption of Spanish Olive Oil, with a catalogue of stamps. Oxford, BAR Tempus Reparatum, British Series 250.

Gabba, E. 1988. Del Buon Uso della Ricchezza. Saggi di storia economica e sociale del mondo antico. Milan, Guerini.

Gadelha, R.M.D’A.F. 1989. A lei de terras (1850) e a abolição da escravidão. Capitalismo e força de trabalho no Brasil do século XIX. Revista de História 120: 153-162.

Gaeta, M.A.J.V. 1995. Poder de sociabilidade no Brasil colonial: as irmandades e confrarias religiosas. Estudos de História, UNESP-Franca 2: 11-36.

Gorender, J. 1978 O escravismo colonial. São Paulo, Ática.

Gourevitch, A. 1991. La science historique et l’anthropologie. Sciences Sociales, Moscow 3: 117-138.

Graham, R. 1970. Comentário. In Keith, H. and Edwards, S. (eds), Conflito e continuidade na sociedade brasileira.  Rio de Janeiro, Civilização Brasileira,  218-225.

Graham, R. 1990. Patronage and Politics in Nineteenth Century Brazil.Standford, Standford University Press.

Gramsci, A. 1979. Gli Intellettuali. Rome, Riunuti.

Haber, A. 1996. Politics and Archaeology: the practice of WAC 3 in India. Revista de História da Arte e Arqueologia 2: 383-384.

Hall, M. 1991. Fish and fishermen, archaeology and art: Cape Town seen by Bowler, D’Oyly and De Meillon. S-ASfr. Tydskr. Kuns-Argit-Gest 2: 78-88.

Häussler, R. 1993. The Romanisation of the Ciuitas Vangionum. Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 30: 41-104.

Hingley, R. 1994. A post-colonial perspective on change in Roman Britain. World Archaeological Congress 3.New Delhi, unpublished typescript.

Hobsbawm, E.J. 1985. The Age of Capital, 1848-1875. London, Abacus.

Hodder, I. 1991. Archaeological theory in contemporary European societies: the emergence of competing traditions. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological Theory in Europe. London, Routledge,  1-24.

Ianni, O. 1978. Debate. Encontros com a Civilização Brasileira 1: 195-204.

Ianni, O. 1980. Negritude e cidadania. Cadernos PUC 2: 11-36.

Ianni, O. 1996. Transculturação. Campinas, Unicamp, unpublished typescript.

Iglesias, F. 1974. Minas e a imposição do Estado no Brasil. Revista de História 100: 257-273.

Jian, J. 1986. História da China, I.  Beijing, China em Construção.

Johnson, M.H. 1992. Meanings of polite architecture in sixteenth century England. Historical Archaeology 26: 45-56.

Johnson, M.H. 1997. Towards a world historical archaeology. Antiquity 71: 220-222.

Jones, S. 1994. “Historical” categories and the praxis of ethnicity: a critique of the intepretation of ethnic groups in ancient Palestine. World Archaeological Congress 3. New Delhi, unpublished typescript.

Kehoe, D.P. 1990. Economic rationalism in Roman agriculture. Journal of Roman Archaeology 6: 475-483.

Kern, A.A. 1994a. Antecedentes indígenas. Porto Alegre, Editora da Universidade.

Kern, A.A. 1994b. Utopias e missões jesuíticas. Porto Alegre, Editora da Universidade.

Klejn, L. 1995. Prehistory and archaeology. In Kuna, M. and Venclová, N. (eds), Wither Archaeology? Praha, Institute of Archaeology,  36-42.

Kobylinski, A. 1996. Early Medieval Achaeology in Poland. World Archaeological Bulletin 8: 224-237.

Koselleck, R. 1985. Futures Past, on the semantics of historical time. Cambridge,  MIT Press.

Kosso, P. 1995. Epistemic independence between textual and material evidence. In Small, D. (ed.), Historical and Archaeological Views on Texts and Archaeology. Leiden,  Brill,  177-196.

Kristeller, P.O. 1943. The place of Classical Humanism in Renaissance thought. Journal of History of Ideas 4: 59-63.

Kristiansen, K. 1995. European origins - ‘civilisation’ and ‘barabarism’. In Graves-Brown, P., Jones, S., Gamble, C. (eds), Cultural Identity and Archaeology. London,  Routledge, 137-144.

Kutsche, P. , Van Ness, J.R. and Smith, A.T. 1976. A unified approach to the anthropology of Hispanic northern New Mexico: historical archaeology, ethnohistory, and ethnography. Historical Archaeology 10: 1-16.

La Rocca, C. 1993. Uno specialismo mancato. Esordi e fallimento dell’archeologia medievale italiana alla fine dell’ottocento. Archeologia Medievale 20: 13-43.

Lacombe, A.J.  1985. A igreja no Brasil colonial. In Holanda, S.B. (ed.), História Geral da Civilização Brasileira. São Paulo,  Difel, 49-75.

Larrabe, E.M. 1969. Historic site archaeology in relation to other archaeology. Historical Archaeology 3: 67-74.

Larsen, M.T. 1989. Orientalism and near eastern archaeology. In Miller, D., Rowlands, M., and Tilley, C. (eds), Domination and Resistance. London,  Unwin Hyman, 230-239.

Lee, T.A. and Markman, S.D. 1977. The Coxoh Colonial Project and Coneta, Chiapas, Mexico: a provincial Maya village under the Spanish Conquest. Historical Archaeology 11: 56-66.

Lees, W.B. and Kimery-Lees, M. 1979. The function of Colono-Indian ceramics: insights from Limerick Plantation, South Carolina. Historical Archaeology 13: 2-13.

Lefebvre, H. 1970. La Révolution Urbaine. Paris,  Gallimard.

Leone, M.P. and Potter, P.B. 1988. Introduction: issues in historical archaeology. In Leone, M.P. and Potter, P.B. (eds),  The Recovery of Meaning. Washington,  Smithsonian, 1-22.

Lepre, A. 1981. La crisi del XVII secolo nel Mezzogiorno d’Italia. Studi Storici 22: 51-77.

Lester, G.C. and Lester, R.H. 1976. Italian presence in tin glazed ceramics of Spanish America. Historical Archaeology 10: 28-41.

Lestringant, F. 1994. L’entrée de l’Amerique dans la mythologie classique. Revista de História da Arte e Arqueologia 1: 87-97.

Levi, S.T. 1994. Women’s work in Italian archaeology. World Archaeological Congress 3. New Delhi, unpublished typescript.

Ligntfoot, K.G. 1995. Culture contact studies: redifining the relationship between prehistoric and historical archaeology. American Antiquity 60: 199-217.

Little, B. 1994. People with history: an update on historical archaeology in the United States. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 5-40.

Little, B.J. and  Shackel, P. 1992. Introduction. In Little, B.J. and Shackel, P.A. (eds), Meanings and Uses of Material Culture, Historical Archaeology 26: 1-21.

Lombard, M. 1955. A evolução urbana durante a Alta Idade Média. Revista de História 23: 47-71.

López, A.M. 1986. Catálogo del Museo Sefardi, en Toledo. Madrid, Ministerio de Cultura..

López, J.M. n.d.. La Arqueología, disciplina concurrente de la historia uruguaya. Hoy es historia 34: 60-62.

Maier, F.G. 1984. Der Historiker und die Text. Historische Zeitschrift 238: 83-94.

Manacorda, D. 1984. Archeologia Urbana a Roma: il progetto della Crypta Balbi, un ‘mondezzaro’del XVIII secolo. Florence,  Insegna del Giglio.

Mani, B.R. 1994. A comparative study of material culture during Rajput and early Sultanate periods on the basis of new evidences from excavations at Lal Kot. World Archaeological Congress 3. New Delhi, unpublished typescript.

Marx, K. 1964. Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations. New York, International Publishers.

Marx, K. 1973. On Society and Social Change. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Mattoso, K.M.Q. 1983. Bahia opulenta: uma capital portuguesa no Novo Mundo (1549-1563). Revista de História 114: 5-20.

Mauro, F. 1970. Le XVIe. siècle européen. Aspects économiques. Paris,  Presses Universitaires de France.

Mazel, A.D. 1989. People making history: the last ten thousand years of hunter-gatherer communities in the Thukela Basin. Natal Museum Journal of Humanities 1: 1-168.

McGuire, R.H. 1996. Why complexity is too simple. In  Dawson, P. C. and Hanna, D.T. (eds), Debating Complexity. Calgary, University Press 1-7.

McGuire, R.H. and Saitta, D.J. 1996. Although they have petty captains, they obey them badly: the dialectics of prehistoric Western Pueblo social organization. American Antiquity 61: 1970216.

McIIwain, C.H. 1941. Medieval institutions in the Modern World. Speculum 16: 275-283.

McKay, J. 1976. The coalescence of history and archaeology. Historical Archaeology 10: 93-98.

Mello e Souza, L. 1996a. Notas sobre as revoltas e as revoluções da Europa moderna. Revista de História 135: 9-18.

Mello e Souza, L. 1996b. A devoção e os  milagres da vida cotidiana. Folha de São Paulo. November the 13th, 1996, 6, p. 11.

Miceli, P. 1995. No confinamento forçado, a concepção longa do tempo. O Estado de São Paulo. November the 26th, D, p.4.

Mill, J.S. 1985. On Liberty. Harmondsworth,  Penguin.

Miller, D. and Tilley, C. 1996. Editorial. Journal of Material Culture 1: 5-14.

Miskimin, H.A. 1975. The Economy of Early Renaissance Europe, 1300-1460. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Morrone, J.J. and Fortino, A.D. 1996. La zoología de los animales fantásticos: apuntes para un bestiario criptológico. Revista Museo, La Plata, 8: 75-80.

Mott, L. 1994. Santos e santas no Brasil colonial. Varia Historia 13: 44-66.

Musim, D.A.1996. Church archaeology in Russia: past and future prospects. World Archaeological Bulletin 8: 128-135.

Mytum, H. 1994. The development of early polities in early Christian Ireland. World Archaeological Congress 3. New Delhi, unpublished typescript.

Neves, G.P. 1991. Resenha. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Histórica 6: 75-78.

Nicolet, C. 1988. Rendre à César. Économie et société dans la Rome antique. Paris,  Gallimard.

Noël Hume, I. 1962. An Indian ware of the colonial period. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 17: 2-14.

Noël Hume, I. 1969. Historical Archaeology. New York, Knopf.

Nogueira, C.R.F. 1984. Demonismo, malícia e malefício; contribuições à História do imaginário mágico-religioso no Brasil. Revista de História 117: 87-98.

Nunes, J.P.A. 1994. Inventores, registros de patentes e de marcas e Arqueologia Industrial. Um exemplo concreto. Revista Portuguesa de História 29: 181-212.

Odália, N. 1974. Sentido da colonização, modo de produção e história colonial. Debate e Crítica 4: 49-60.

Olivier, L. and Coudart, A. 1995. French tradition and the central place of history in the human sciences. In Ucko, P. (ed.), Theory in Archaeology, a world perspective. London,  Routledge,  363-381.

Orser, C.E. 1991. The archaeological search for ethnicity in the historic United States. Archaeologia Polona 29: 109-121.

Orser, C.E. 1996. A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. New York,  Plenum.

Orser, C.E. and Fagan, B.  M. 1995. Historical Archaeology. New York,   HarperCollins.

Oxfeld, E. 1992. Individualism, holism, and the market mentality: notes on the recollections of a Chinese entrepreneur. Cultural Anthropology 7: 267-300.

Paynter, R. 1988. Steps to an archaeology of capitalism. Material change and class analysis. In Leone, M.P. and Potter, P.B. (eds), The Recovery of Meaning. Washington, Smithsoninan Institution, 407-433.

Paynter, R. and McGuire, R.H. 1991. The archaeology of inequality: material culture, domination, and resistance. In Paynter, R. and McGuire, R.H. (eds), The Archaeology of Inequality. Oxford,  Blackwell, 1-27.

Pendery, S.R. 1992. Consumer behavior in colonial Charlestown, Massachusetts, 1630-1760. Historical Archaeology 26: 52-72.

Petrilli, S. 1993. Thomas A. Sebeok and semiotics in the United States in the panorama of recent developments in Italian semiotics. Semiotica 97: 337-372.

Phillips, W.D. and Phillips, C.R. 1992. The Worlds of Christopher Columbus. Cambridge,  Cambridge University Press.

Pifano, R.Q. 1996. A concepção arquitetônica de Aleijadinho - Igreja São Francisco de Assis em Ouro Preto. Locus 2: 127-139.

Pikarayi, I. 1994. Current trends in historical archaeology in southern Africa with particular reference to northern Zimbabwe. World Archaeological Congress 3. New Delhi, unpublished typescript.

Pirenne, H. 1939. Mohammed and Charlemagne. London, George Allen and Unwin.

Politis, G. 1995. The socio-politics of the development of archaeology in Hispanic South America. In Ucko, P. (ed.), Theory in Archaeology, a world perspective. London,  Routledge,  197-235.

Posenato, J. 1987. A Arquitetura residencial rural norte-italiana e a da imigração italiana no Rio Grande do Sul. In De Boni, L.A. (ed.), A presença italiana no Brasil. Porto Alegre,  EST,  452-488.

Potter, P.B. n.d.. A Way of  Thinking about Historical Archaeology in New Hampshire. Unpublished typescript.

Preucel, R.W. 1991. Introduction. In Preucel, R.W. (ed.), Processual and Postprocessual archaeologies, multiple ways of knowing the past. Carbondale,  SIUP, 1-14.

Prous, A. 1994. L’archéologie brésilienne aujourd’hui. In Lévêque, P., Dabdab Trabulsi, J.A. , and Carvalho, S. (eds), Recherches Brésiliennes, Archéologie, Histoire ancienne et anthropologie. Paris,  Belles Letres,  9-43.

Rathbone, D. 1983. Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third Century AD Egypt, the Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate. Cambridge,  Cambridge University Press.

Remesal, J. 1982. Instrumentum domesticum e storia economica: le anfore Dressel 20. Opus 11: 105-113.

Represa, F. 1996. Postmedieval archaeology in Spain: an overview. World Archaeological Bulletin 7: 137-148.

Riu, M. 1989. L’Arqueologia Medieval a Catalunya. Barcelona,  Els Llibres de la Frontera.

Rogers, J.D. 1997. Review. American Antiquity 62: 159-160.

Romano, R. 1984. American Feudalism. Hispanic American Historical Review 64: 121-134.

Roniger, L. 1987. Caciquismo and coronelismo: contextual dimensions of patron brokerage in Mexico and Brazil. Latin American Research Review 22: 71-99.

Rowse, A.L. 1948. The Use of History. London, Hodder and Stoughton.

SAA 1997. Preliminary Program and Registration Information, SAA, 62nd Annual Meeting. April 2-6, 1997, Nashville, Tennesse.

Saitta, D.J. 1992. Radical archaeology and middle-range methodology. Antiquity 66: 886-897.

Saitta, D.J. 1994. Agency, class, and archaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13: 201-227.

Saitta, D.J. 1995. Marxism and archaeology. In Callari, A., Cullinberg, S. and Biewener, C. (eds), Marxism in the Postmodern Age, confronting the New World Order. New York,  Gulford, 385-393.

Saitta, D.J. 1997. Power, labor, and the dynamics of change in Chacoan political economy. American Antiquity,62: 7-26.

Samara, E.M. 1991. Patriarcalismo, família e poder na sociedade brasileira (séculos XVI-XIX). Revista Brasileira de História 22: 7-23.

Schulin, E. 1987. Geschichtswissenschaft in unserem Jahrhundert, Problem und Umrisse einer Geschichte der Historie. Historische Zeitschrift 245: 1-30.

Schuyler, R.L. 1970. Historical and historic sites archaeology as anthropology: some basic definitions and relationships. Historical Archaeology, 4, 83-89.

Schwartz, S. 1988. Segredos íntimos. Engenhos e escravos na sociedade colonial, 1550-1835. Translated by Laura Teixeira Motta, São Paulo,  Companhia das Letras.

Shanks, M. 1993. Style and the design of a perfume jar from an archaic Greek city state. Journal of European Archaeology 1: 77-106.

Shanks, M. and Hodder, I. 1995. Processual, postprocessual and interpretive archaeologies. In Hodder, I., Shanks, M., Alexandri, A., Buchli, V., Carman, J., Last, J., Lucas, G. (eds), Interpreting Archaeology. Cambridge,  Cambridge University Press,  3-29.

Shanks, M. and McGuire, R. 1996. The craft of archaeology. American Antiquity 61: 75-88.

Shulin, D. and Lin, H. 1997. Macao: pont entre l’Orient et l’Occident. La Chine au Présent 35: 14-18.

Small, D. 1994. The tyranny of the concept: lost social strategies in current historical period archaeology in the classical Mediterranean. World Archaeological Congress 3, New Delhi, unpublished typescript.

Small, D. 1995. Archaeology and text in Ancient Athens. In Small, D. (ed.), Methods in the Mediterranean, Historical and archaeological views on texts and archaeology. Leiden,  Brill, 143-176.

Snow, D. 1997. Review. American Antiquity 62: 162-163.

Soboul, A. 1965. La Révolution Française. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Spinella, M. 1978. Prefazione. In Gramsci, A., Elementi di Politica. Rome,  Riuniti, 7-28.

Stierle, K. 1979. Erfahrung und narrative Form. Bemerkungen zu ihrem Zusammenhang in Fiktion und Historiographie. In Kocka, J. and Nipperdey, T. (eds), Theorie und Erzählung in der Geschichte. München, DTV, 85-118.

Strasburger, H. 1966. Die Wesensbestimmung der Geschichte durch die antike Geschichtsschreibung. München,  DTV.

Tamanini, E. 1995. História Revisitada: a imigração alemã no Sul do Brasil sob o olhar da cultura material. Campinas, UNICAMP,  unpublished typescript.

Tchernov, S. 1996. Os macaquinhos da bodega de Moscou. Revista de História da Arte e Arqueologia 2: 83-90.

Thurman, M.D. 1996. Review. Historical Archaeology 30: 87-90.

Toch, M. 1986. Lords and peasants: a reappraisal of Medieval economic relationship. Journal of European Economic History 15: 163-181.

Toledo, R.P. 1996. Tecendo a rede de clientes e patrões. Veja 6/17/96, p. 134.

Tolstoi, L.N. 1957. War and Peace.  Translated by Rosemary Edmonds, Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Trigger, B.G. 1989. History and contemporary American archaeology: a critical analysis. In Lamberg-Karlovskj, C.C. (ed.), Archaeological Thought in America. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 19-34.

Ucko, P. 1989. Foreword. In Shennan, S. (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. London,  Unwin Hyman,  ix-xx.

Ucko, P. 1995. (edited by) Theory in Archaeology, a world perspective. London,   Routledge.

Ulin, R.C. 1994. The anthropologist and the historian as storytellers. Dialectical Anthropology 19: 389-400.

Vann, R.T. 1988. Historians’ words and things. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18: 465-470.

Vargas, I. 1990. Arqueología, ciencia y sociedad. Caracas, Abre Brecha.

Velho, G. 1996. Felicidade à brasileira. Folha de São Paulo, Mais!, 11/3/96, p.10.

Vianna, O. 1987. Instituições Políticas Brasileiras. São Paulo,  Edusp.

Walker, I.C. 1967. Historic archaeology - methods and principles. Historical Archaeology 1: 23-34.

Webster, L. 1986. Anglo-Saxon England (AD 400-1100). In Longworth, I. and Cherry, J. (eds), Archaeology in Britain since 1945. London,  British Museum Publications, 119-160.

Weckmann, L. 1992. The Medieval Heritage of  Colonial and Modern Mexico. New York, Fordham University Press.

Weckmann, L. 1993. La herencia medieval del Brasil. México,  Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Wheeler, M. 1955. Rome Beyond the Imperial Frontiers. Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Wheeler, M. 1956. Archaeology from the Earth. Harmondsworth,  Penguin.

Williams, R. 1988. Keywords. Glasgow, Fontana.

White, L. 1962. Medieval Technology and Social Change. Oxford,  Oxford University Press.

Wittman, T. 1969. El aporte común de América Latina y Europa central a la génesis del capitalismo. Estudos Históricos 8: 79-92.

Wood, E.M. 1994. From opportunity to imperative: the history of the market. Monthly Review 46, 14-40.

Ximena, M. 1995. Tecnologías nativas y estrategias de ocupación española en la región del Río de la Plata. Columbia,  The University of South Carolina.

Yanine, V. 1983. La Novgorod médiévale: 50 ans de fouilles. Sciences Sociales 54: 119-129.

Young, T.C. 1988. Since Herodotus, has history been a valid concept? American Antiquity 53: 7-12.

Zarmati, L. 1994. The archaeology of gender: problems of accessing non-literates in ‘literate’ Classical Athens. World Archaeological Congress 3, New Delhi, unpublished typescript.

Zevi, B. 1995. Barrocco, Illuminismo. Rome, Newton.

 

 

 

CAPTIONS FOR ILLUSTRATIONS

 

1. Drawing and photograph of the white marble sink from Tarragona, Spain (75 x 14 x 44 cm). Cantera and Millás 1956: 351; plate xxviii; López 1986: 54). [N.B: there are five images of the same artefact, the publisher can choose one or more of them for publication]

 

2. Key stored in the Cathedral of Seville, Spain (20 x 5.3  x 4 cm); photographs from the original publication by Cantera and Millás (1956: 386; plate xxxi).

 

3. Rammonim or pomegranades from Palma de Mallorca, Spain (31 x 10 cm); photographs from the original publication by Cantera and Millás (1956: 389-390; plates xxxii-xxxiii). [N.B. there are two plates of the same artefacts, so the publisher can choose one for publication]

 

4. Largest ancient oikoumene: the Roman Empire; Roman Empire in the second century AD and Asian trade-routes (Wheeler 1955: 14).

 

5. Florentine measures in exchange with those of other towns, from Libro di mecatantie et usanze de paesi, Florence 1481: b iv. -b ii r. As published by Baxandall (1988: 96).

 

6. St. Francis of Assisi Church building, Ouro Preto Minas Gerais, Brazil; eighteenth century ( Pifano 1996: 131-134).

 

7. The Greek City: Miletus (Contin and Larmacón 1996: 92).

 

8. The Roman City: drawing from Vitruvius, 1536 (Contin and Larmacón 1996: 92).

 

9. Renaissance City: Turin the the 1500s (Contin and Larmacón 1996:93).

 

10. Hispanic Colonial town: 1500s (Contin and Larmacón 1996: 94).

 

11. Town perspective in Greece and at the Argentine Pampa (Contin and Larmacón 1996: 94).

 

12. Greek and Hispanic Colonial courtyard (Contin and Larmacón 1996:95).