LOUANN WURST Internalizing Class in Historical Archaeology ABSTRACT Historical archaeologists have either ignored class or defined it as a category or objective entity. In this work, it is argued that viewing class as a formation provides a powerful tool for studying the past. Defining class in this way stems from a theory of internal relation s that sees class as a relational , analytical concept that operates at more than one scale or level of abstraction. Two examples demonstrate the class dynamics in different social and historic contexts. The first focuses on class at the community level, while the second looks at the class structure within a single household. Only through the process of abstracting class in real historic contexts can we operationalize class as an analytical concept powerful enough to understand internal social relations. Introduction Many historical archaeologists recognize that our field is explicitly defined by capitalist social relations (Handsman 1983; Orser 1987; Leone and Potter 1988; Little 1994; Leone 1995). Oth- ers have defined historical archaeology in terms of modernity or colonialism (Schuyler 1970; Deetz 1977; Deagan 1991; Orser 1996). These terms do not deny connections to capitalism, al- though they effectively mask them. The irony of this emphasis on capitalism is that historical ar- chaeologists have spent very little time address- ing the issue of class- a concept that many believe is central to capitalism. A decade ago, Paynter (1988:409) wrote that "few analysts have attempted to make detailed use of class models of capitalism." This situation remains unchanged and class continues to be a "ghost" concept in historical archaeology. Defining class is difficult since numerous con- troversial views abound. Part of the difficulty stems from three very different definitions of the term. Williams (1983:60-69) cogently presents a "classification" of these multiple meanings: Historical Archaeology, 1999. 33(1):7-21. Permission to reprint required. 7 i) objective group: class as a discrete social or eco- nomic category; ii) rank: class as relative social position by birth or mobility; iii) formation: class based on perceived economic re- lationship; social political and cultural organization. Williams argues that all three of these usages have been combined, often without clear distinc- tion. The key difference among these definitions is that class has been used either as a category (either objective or relative, i and ii) or a rela- tional formation (iii). This framework presents a useful way to organize the ways that historical archaeologists have used the class concept. Perhaps the most obvious way historical ar- chaeologists have dealt with class is avoidance. The post-modern focus on the subjective indi- vidual precludes inquiry into issues of clas s. Since much recent work places the autonomous individual on center stage (Thomas 1996), social formations, such as class, become blurred or in- visible. Avoiding class can be found, however, in other, perhaps surprising, contexts. Orser (1996:86) "makes no explicit study" of clas s when discussing his "haunts" of colonialism, eurocentrism, capitalism, and modernity. In an- other example, Shackel (1996) studies the chang- ing nature of work at Harpers Ferry, emphasiz- ing the worker's loss of autonomy as a result of deskilling labor, yet the word "class" does not appear in the book 's index and seldom in the text. By far, the most common approach has been to link class with status, and these terms are of- ten used interchangeably (Baugher and Venables 1987; Shepard 1987). Spencer-Wood and Heberling (1987:59) define status as "the location of the behavior of individuals or the social posi- tions of individuals themselves in the structure of any group. It is a defined social position located in a defined social universe." They go on to suggest that although class and status are not synonymous, there is a high level of correlation between the two concepts; Spencer-Wood and Heberling do not provide a definition of class.