Abstract
The Walser people are not unknown to scholarship. Regional historians, dialectologists, vernacular architects, alpine ecologists, and legal historians have produced a substantial body of specialist literature on Walser communities across the alpine arc. What has not happened — with very few exceptions — is the incorporation of Walser history into the national historical narratives of Switzerland, Italy, Austria, or any other state within whose modern borders Walser communities fall. The Walsers are present in the footnotes of national histories, occasionally surfacing as illustrative examples of medieval frontier settlement or alpine legal peculiarity, but they do not appear as protagonists, as a people whose history is part of the story those national narratives are trying to tell. This paper diagnoses that absence. It argues that the exclusion of the Walsers from national historical synthesis is not primarily a consequence of insufficient evidence, scholarly ignorance, or the simple smallness of the Walser population. It is a consequence of prestige bias — a systematic tendency in historical synthesis to foreground the actors, institutions, and processes that national narratives have already identified as significant, and to relegate to the margins everything that does not map cleanly onto the categories of state, nation, language standard, and literate high culture that organize those narratives. The Walser case is not an anomaly. It is a diagnostic instance of a failure mode that affects the writing of national history broadly, and understanding it precisely may contribute to a more honest reckoning with what national historical synthesis systematically leaves out.
1. Introduction: The Space Between the Records
Every national history is also a theory — a theory about which actors, processes, and periods matter enough to constitute a narrative, and which do not. The theory is rarely stated explicitly. It operates through the selection of sources, the definition of events, the identification of protagonists, and the choices about scale and perspective that determine what a history is about. When historians write the history of Switzerland, they write about the Confederation, the cantons, the Reformation, the mercenary tradition, the development of neutrality, and the emergence of a modern federal state. When they write the history of Italy, they write about the city-states, the Renaissance, the Risorgimento, unification, and the formation of national identity from a fragmented peninsula. When they write the history of Austria, they write about the Habsburgs, the imperial system, the nationalities question, and the catastrophic unraveling of the nineteenth-century order.
In none of these narratives do the Walsers appear in any sustained way. They are not absent because the historians who wrote these national syntheses lacked the erudition to know about them. The major syntheses of Swiss, Italian, and Austrian history were written by scholars of formidable learning who were aware of regional peculiarities, minority populations, and the complexity of the territories their narratives encompassed. The Walsers were, in principle, available to them. What made the Walsers invisible in practice was not ignorance but selection — a set of criteria, operating mostly below the level of explicit methodological reflection, that determined which communities and which stories were worth foregrounding in a national synthesis and which were not.
This paper names and diagnoses those criteria. It argues that prestige bias — the systematic privileging of actors and institutions associated with state power, literary culture, military achievement, and the production of formal documentary records — operates as a structuring principle of national historical synthesis in ways that make communities like the Walsers categorically unlikely to appear as protagonists, regardless of the historical significance of their experience or the intellectual interest of the questions their history raises. And it asks, in conclusion, what a historical synthesis that took the Walser case seriously would look like — not as a correction within existing frameworks but as an argument for different frameworks altogether.
2. What We Know: Subsumption Into National Narratives
2.1 The Walser Presence in National Territories
The geographic distribution of Walser communities maps almost perversely onto the boundaries of the modern nation-states that emerged in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Walser settlements fall within Switzerland, Italy, Austria, and Liechtenstein — four distinct national frameworks, each with its own historiographical tradition, each developing its national narrative according to its own particular logic of identity and legitimacy. A Walser community in Graubünden is, in the Swiss framework, a Swiss community; a Walser community in Vorarlberg is, in the Austrian framework, an Austrian community; a Walser community in the Aosta Valley is, in the Italian framework, an Italian community. The Walser identity that connects these communities across national boundaries is, from the perspective of each national framework, either invisible or incidental — a regional curiosity within the more fundamental identity of Swiss, Austrian, or Italian citizenship.
This subsumption is not primarily a historiographical problem. It reflects the genuine political reality of Walser communities, which were incorporated into the emerging national frameworks through processes of state formation and administrative consolidation that began in the late medieval period and were largely complete, in their modern form, by the late nineteenth century. Walser communities participated in the political life of their respective national units — they were subject to the same legal systems, educated in the same schools, taxed by the same states, and in many cases drafted into the same armies as their non-Walser neighbors. Their political identity, by the time national history was being written in earnest, was genuinely multiple: Walser and Swiss, Walser and Austrian, Walser and Italian, in ways that made the Walser dimension of the identity easy to overlook as a local rather than a national matter.
But the fact that Walser political identity was genuinely embedded in national frameworks does not explain why Walser history should be absent from national historical narratives. Switzerland, after all, is a confederation of diverse linguistic and regional communities, and its national historical narrative has always needed to accommodate that diversity. Italy’s unification narrative has always required reckoning with the minority populations — German-speakers in South Tyrol, French-speakers in the Aosta Valley, Slovenes in Friuli — that the Risorgimento incorporated without fully integrating. Austria’s imperial history was precisely a history of national and ethnic complexity. In each of these frameworks, there was room, in principle, for the Walsers. The question is why that room was consistently not used.
2.2 The Mechanisms of Subsumption
Subsumption into national narratives operates through several overlapping mechanisms, each of which bears directly on the Walser case.
The first is the mechanism of linguistic assimilation. National histories are typically organized around national languages, and communities that speak minority languages or dialects are typically integrated into national narratives by treating their language as a variant or survival within the national linguistic framework rather than as an independent linguistic and cultural system. Walser dialects, in the Swiss and Austrian frameworks, are treated as regional varieties of German — interesting to the dialectologist, perhaps, but not fundamentally distinct from the broader German-speaking cultural world that both Switzerland and Austria include within their national frameworks. In the Italian framework, Walser communities are treated as one of several German-language minority populations within Italy — a special case meriting specific legal protections but not a historiographical category of its own. In neither treatment do the Walser dialects appear as what this series has argued they are: a distinctive linguistic tradition encoding centuries of alpine experience in a form that is irreducible to any of its national linguistic contexts.
The second mechanism is administrative absorption. From the perspective of the administrative units that produced the documentary record on which national history is built — the cantonal government, the episcopal see, the noble lordship, the imperial district — Walser communities appeared as localities within larger administrative structures, not as a distinct people with a coherent history extending across those structures. The documents that an archivist consulted when writing the history of Graubünden recorded Walser communities as communities of the canton, not as nodes in a Walser world that extended into Vorarlberg and Piedmont. The administrative frame imposed by the archive was, in this sense, already a subsumption — a prior organization of the evidence that made the supra-cantonal, supra-national character of Walser history invisible before the historian even began to ask questions.
The third mechanism is scalar mismatch. National histories are written at a scale — the nation, the state, the century — that is poorly suited to the evidence the Walser case provides. Walser history is most legible at the scale of the valley community, the alpine region, the century-long process of ecological adaptation. It does not produce the kinds of events — battles, treaties, dynastic transitions, political revolutions — that organize national historical narratives at the scale at which those narratives operate. A national historian looking for entry points into Walser history finds few moments of dramatic visibility; what Walser history offers is instead a long, slow, locally detailed process of adaptation and survival that resists the event-centered narrative logic of most national synthesis.
3. What We Don’t Know: The Problem of Deliberate Non-Foregrounding
3.1 The Historian’s Unrecorded Choices
The mechanisms of subsumption identified above are, in a sense, structural. They operate through the organization of archives, the logic of administrative categories, the scale of national narrative — forces that constrain what historians can see even before they make deliberate choices about what to foreground. But there is another dimension of the Walser absence from national histories that is more difficult to assess, because it involves the interior of the scholarly decision-making process rather than its structural constraints: the question of how often historians noticed the Walsers and chose, for reasons that may or may not have been explicitly articulated, not to foreground them.
This question cannot be answered from the published historical record, because published historical work records what historians chose to include, not what they chose to exclude. The drafts, notes, reading lists, and intellectual correspondence that might reveal the moment at which a historian encountered Walser evidence and decided it was not central to the narrative being constructed are, in most cases, not preserved or not accessible. The absence of the Walsers from national histories is a documented fact; the process by which that absence was produced — how many times it was an active choice rather than a structural inevitability — is not.
This uncertainty is itself significant. It means that we cannot distinguish cleanly between two very different accounts of the Walser absence: an account in which historians were simply unable to see the Walsers because their methods and frameworks made them invisible, and an account in which historians saw the Walsers, judged them insufficiently important or insufficiently legible within the national narrative framework, and actively chose not to pursue them. Both accounts may be true in different cases and different periods. But the inability to distinguish between them is a reminder that the production of national historical narratives is not a purely structural process — it involves individual scholars making individual choices about significance, relevance, and narrative fit, and those choices are, in most cases, unrecorded and therefore unaccountable.
3.2 The Silence of the Mainstream
What can be assessed, even without access to the interior of individual scholarly decisions, is the pattern of Walser engagement in the major national historical syntheses and the major methodological debates that have shaped those syntheses. That pattern reveals not merely absence but a specific kind of absence — the absence of a community that was available to scholarship, that had been documented in specialist literature, and that appeared in regional and local histories without ever crossing the threshold into national synthetic work.
The regional and local historical literature on Walser communities is substantial, particularly in the German-language scholarship of Switzerland and Austria. From the nineteenth century onward, local historians, philologists, and folklorists produced accounts of individual Walser communities and regions that were accessible, in principle, to any national historian with relevant interests. The Walser material was not hidden. It was simply not recruited into national narratives, and the specialist literature in which it was housed was apparently not consulted by those writing at the national scale — or, if consulted, not treated as generating claims that the national narrative needed to accommodate.
This pattern of non-engagement is itself a form of evidence. It suggests that the Walser absence from national histories is not primarily an information problem — a matter of national historians not knowing about Walser communities — but a significance problem: a judgment, typically implicit and unargued, that the Walser experience does not constitute material from which national historical arguments need to be made. That judgment is what this paper identifies as prestige bias, and it is worth examining the structure of that bias with some care.
4. The Failure Mode: Prestige Bias in Historical Synthesis
4.1 Defining Prestige Bias
Prestige bias, as used in this paper, refers to the systematic tendency of historical synthesis to organize itself around actors and institutions that already occupy positions of recognized significance within the frameworks through which history has been institutionally produced and transmitted. It is not a simple bias toward power, though power and prestige are correlated. It is, more precisely, a bias toward visibility — toward the actors, institutions, and processes that generated the kinds of evidence that historical training equips scholars to recognize and value, and that map onto the categories of significance that national historical narratives have already established.
In the context of national historical synthesis, prestige attaches most strongly to the following clusters of historical actors and phenomena: states and state-building processes; military and diplomatic events; the development of formal legal and administrative institutions; literary and intellectual culture; religious institutions and their conflicts; and economic transformations legible through quantitative or documentary evidence. These are the domains in which national historical narratives have invested most heavily, for reasons that are not arbitrary — they are genuinely significant domains — but whose dominance has consequences for what falls below the threshold of national historical attention.
Communities and processes that do not map onto these prestigious categories face a structural disadvantage in historical synthesis that is independent of their actual historical significance. The Walsers built no state, fought no major battle under their own banner, produced no literary tradition, left no substantial formal institutional record beyond their charters, and participated in economic processes — high-altitude pastoralism, dairy production, timber construction — that were locally significant but invisible in the macro-economic frameworks that national economic history has typically employed. By every criterion that prestige bias uses to assign significance, the Walsers fall below the threshold. This does not mean that they were historically insignificant. It means that their significance is of a kind that prestige bias is structurally unable to recognize.
4.2 Prestige Bias and the National Narrative Form
The problem is compounded by the specific requirements of the national narrative form itself. National histories are not simply repositories of information about the past; they are arguments about identity — about who a national community is, where it came from, and what its existence means. These arguments require protagonists: actors whose stories can be told in ways that illuminate the national identity being constructed. Protagonists of national histories need to be legible within the categories of national identity — they need to be, in some recognizable sense, the ancestors or predecessors of the national community whose history is being written.
The Walsers present a specific problem for national narrative protagonism. Their most important identity was not national — it was alpine, communal, and based on a specific relationship to a specific ecological niche that no modern national community claims as definitional for its identity. Swiss national identity is not organized around high-altitude pastoralism; Italian national identity is not organized around Highest Alemannic dialects; Austrian national identity is not organized around the commons governance of dispersed mountain communities. The Walsers cannot serve as national ancestors because the most interesting and significant thing about them — the specific complex of ecological, legal, linguistic, and architectural adaptation that constituted Walser civilization — does not translate into national identity terms.
This creates a double bind for the Walser historian attempting to argue for national historical inclusion. The argument must be made in terms that national history can recognize — significance, representativeness, relevance to national identity — but the Walser case derives its significance precisely from the ways in which it exceeds or resists those terms. A Walser history written to fit national narrative requirements would necessarily be a diminished Walser history, one that extracted from the Walser experience those elements that could be claimed for Swiss or Austrian or Italian identity and discarded the rest. The price of national historical inclusion, for the Walsers, may be the distortion of what makes their history worth understanding.
4.3 The Compounding Effect of Non-Literate Evidence
Prestige bias is further compounded, in the Walser case, by the specific character of the evidence through which Walser history is most richly recoverable. As the preceding papers in this series have argued at length, the most important Walser knowledge — ecological, technical, spatial, linguistic — was transmitted through practice, embodied skill, and oral tradition rather than through writing. The physical record of that knowledge, in architecture and landscape, is rich but requires analytical tools that conventional historical training does not typically provide. The linguistic record requires specialist dialectological expertise. The ecological record requires palynological and zooarchaeological methods. None of these evidence types are the evidence that national historians are trained to find, evaluate, and argue from.
This means that prestige bias in the Walser case is not only a bias of subject matter but a bias of method. The historical training that equips a scholar to write national synthesis is calibrated to the documentary record — the archive, the charter, the chronicle, the court record. It is not calibrated to the roof pitch of a Walser house, the distribution of a dialect isogloss, or the pollen record from an alpine lake. A national historian who encountered the Walser evidence and found it difficult to work with would have rational, method-internal reasons for treating it as insufficiently tractable for national synthesis, even if the bias thus expressed was in the deepest sense a failure of historical imagination rather than a reasonable methodological limitation.
The compounding of subject-matter bias with methodological bias creates a situation in which the Walser case can almost never win. If the relevant evidence is documentary, the documents speak of legal arrangements and property transactions that seem too local and too narrow for national synthesis. If the relevant evidence is non-documentary, it is outside the competence that national historians typically bring to their work. Either way, the Walser material appears — to eyes trained in conventional national historical synthesis — as either too thin or too difficult to serve as the basis for arguments at the national scale.
5. What a Different Kind of Synthesis Would Require
The diagnostic conclusion of this paper is not simply that national histories have failed the Walsers — though they have — but that the failure reveals something about the nature and limits of the national historical synthesis as a form. The Walsers are not an exception to national history; they are evidence of what national history, as currently practiced, cannot see. And what national history cannot see is substantial: the intelligence of non-literate communities, the significance of ecological adaptation as a form of historical achievement, the meaning of dispersed and non-state-centered peoples for any adequate account of how human beings have organized their lives in specific places under specific conditions.
A historical synthesis adequate to the Walser case would require, at minimum, three reorientations. The first is methodological: a willingness to treat non-documentary evidence — architectural, linguistic, ecological, archaeological — as primary rather than supplementary, and to develop the interpretive competences necessary to argue from that evidence with the same rigor applied to documentary sources. The second is categorical: a willingness to recognize forms of historical significance that do not map onto the prestige categories of state, literary culture, and military achievement — to treat the sustained occupation of high-altitude terrain over six centuries as a historical achievement of the same order of importance as a military victory or a legislative reform, and to treat the governance of alpine commons as an institutional innovation worthy of the same analytical attention as the development of a legal code. The third is scalar: a willingness to write national history at multiple scales simultaneously — the valley and the region alongside the state and the continent — without forcing the smaller scale to be merely illustrative of arguments made at the larger one.
These reorientations are not, in principle, beyond the reach of historical scholarship. They have been advocated, in various forms, by historians working in the traditions of microhistory, environmental history, the history of everyday life, and the history of non-literate peoples. What has not happened is their integration into mainstream national historical synthesis in ways that would make communities like the Walsers genuinely visible at the national scale. The Walser case is a precise and demanding test of whether that integration is possible — and of what the cost of its continued failure actually is.
6. Conclusion: The Diagnostic Value of an Absence
The absence of the Walsers from national histories is not merely an oversight to be corrected by the addition of a chapter or a case study. It is a diagnostic indicator — a symptom whose analysis reveals something about the structural logic of national historical synthesis that advocates of individual corrections cannot fully address. Prestige bias is not an error made by individual historians who failed to notice the Walsers; it is a systematic feature of how national historical synthesis has been organized, what evidence it has been trained to value, and what categories of significance it has been built to recognize.
The Walsers disappeared from national histories not because they were unimportant but because their importance was of a kind that national historical synthesis, as currently constituted, lacks the tools to see. They were too dispersed for national territorial narratives, too non-literate for documentary frameworks, too ecologically specialized for economic histories organized around market integration, too linguistically fragmented for narratives organized around national language standardization, and too stubbornly local for accounts of state formation that demand protagonists who aspired to, or participated in, the building of larger political structures.
What they were, instead, was a people who solved real problems in real places over real centuries — who built shelter that lasted, governed commons that sustained communities, maintained a language family across geographic dispersal without any institutional support, and colonized terrain that no state had the capacity or the will to colonize for them. That achievement did not require national recognition to be real. But the failure to recognize it in national historical synthesis is a real failure — a failure whose diagnosis is the necessary first step toward the more adequate and more honest account of human historical experience that the Walser case, and the many cases like it, deserve.
Notes
Note 1 — On the Historiography of Omission. The study of historical omission — of who and what does not appear in historical narratives and why — has developed as a recognizable strand of historiographical reflection since at least the interventions of the Annales school in the mid-twentieth century, which argued against the event-centered, politically focused narrative history that dominated European national historiography and in favor of slower, deeper, structurally oriented accounts that could accommodate the experience of populations invisible to political narrative. More recent contributions include de Certeau’s (1988) analysis of the operation of historical writing as a practice of inclusion and exclusion, and Trouillot’s (1995) theorization of “silences” in historical production. Neither work engages specifically with alpine populations, but both provide theoretical resources directly applicable to the Walser case.
Note 2 — On Microhistory as a Partial Corrective. The microhistorical tradition, developed most influentially by Italian historians including Ginzburg (1980) and Levi (1988), offers one partial response to prestige bias by treating individual communities or persons as points of entry into historical questions that exceed their apparent scale. The microhistorical method has been applied to alpine communities — Le Roy Ladurie’s (1978) Montaillou is the most celebrated example, though it concerns a Pyrenean rather than alpine community — and could in principle be applied to Walser communities with productive results. The limitation of microhistory as a response to the problem diagnosed in this paper is that it typically remains at the margins of national historical synthesis, operating in its own scholarly space rather than challenging the organizing logic of national narrative from within.
Note 3 — On Environmental History and the Walser Case. Environmental history, as developed by scholars including Cronon (1983), White (1991), and Worster (1979), provides an analytical framework explicitly organized around the relationship between human communities and their ecological contexts — a framework within which the Walser achievement of sustained high-altitude settlement is not merely a local curiosity but a significant instance of a general historical problem. The environmental history literature has engaged with alpine contexts, including Mathieu’s (2009) important work on alpine history, but has not produced a sustained environmental history of the Walser people specifically. Such a work, integrating the ecological, architectural, linguistic, and documentary evidence discussed in this series, would represent a significant contribution to both Walser studies and environmental history more broadly.
Note 4 — On the Politics of Minority History in Switzerland, Austria, and Italy. The political context of minority historical recognition differs significantly across the three primary national contexts of Walser settlement. Switzerland’s officially multilingual and multicultural national identity creates some institutional space for minority community histories, and cantonal historical institutions have in some cases supported Walser historical research. Austria’s Vorarlberg, where Walser communities retain the most vitality, has developed a regional cultural identity in which Walser heritage plays a visible role. Italy’s approach to its German-language minorities, including Walser communities in the Aosta Valley and Piedmont, has been shaped by the broader politics of South Tyrolean autonomy and the framework of minority language protection legislation. In none of these contexts, however, has Walser history achieved genuine visibility in the national historical narrative, as opposed to regional cultural policy.
Note 5 — On Prestige Bias in Economic History. The economic history literature presents a specific version of the prestige bias problem for the Walser case. Economic historians of medieval and early modern Europe have focused primarily on processes — urbanization, market integration, proto-industrialization, long-distance trade — that are most visible in the documentary records of cities, merchant communities, and formal commercial institutions. High-altitude pastoral economies, operating through subsistence and local exchange with limited documentary traces, fall almost entirely outside the evidential base of conventional economic history. Recent developments in economic history, including the systematic use of non-documentary quantitative evidence and the turn toward long-run comparative analysis of living standards, have created some space for incorporating non-market and non-urban economies, but have not yet produced sustained engagement with Walser economic history specifically.
Note 6 — On the National History Genre and Its Alternatives. The genre of national history — the synthetic account of a nation’s past organized around the development of national identity, institutions, and territory — has been extensively criticized from multiple scholarly directions since at least the 1980s, including by postcolonial scholars, feminist historians, social historians, and practitioners of the new cultural history. Despite this criticism, the national history genre retains enormous institutional vitality: it is taught in schools, published by major presses, and constitutes the primary framework through which non-specialist publics understand historical experience. The persistence of the genre in the face of sustained scholarly critique is itself a phenomenon requiring explanation, and is related to the prestige bias diagnosed in this paper: national history is prestigious, institutionally supported, and organizationally entrenched in ways that alternative forms of historical synthesis are not.
Note 7 — On the Walser as a Test Case for Transnational History. The dispersed, multi-national character of the Walser world makes the Walsers a natural test case for transnational or cross-border historical approaches that have gained increasing attention in recent decades. Transnational history, as practiced by scholars including Bayly (2004) and Conrad (2016), argues for historical frameworks that cross national boundaries and trace connections, movements, and processes that national history, by its territorial logic, cannot capture. The Walser case — a people whose most significant historical identity and achievement operated precisely across the boundaries that national history takes as its organizing frame — is ideally suited to demonstrate both the potential and the methodological demands of transnational historical analysis applied to non-elite, non-literate, and environmentally embedded communities.
References
Appleby, J., Hunt, L., & Jacob, M. (1994). Telling the truth about history. W. W. Norton.
Barthes, R. (1981). The discourse of history (S. Bann, Trans.). Comparative Criticism, 3, 7–20.
Bayly, C. A. (2004). The birth of the modern world, 1780–1914: Global connections and comparisons. Blackwell.
Bätzing, W. (2003). Die Alpen: Geschichte und Zukunft einer europäischen Kulturlandschaft. C.H. Beck.
Berger, S., & Lorenz, C. (Eds.). (2008). The contested nation: Ethnicity, class, religion and gender in national histories. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230583lll
Bloch, M. (1953). The historian’s craft (P. Putnam, Trans.). Alfred A. Knopf. (Original work published 1949)
Burke, P. (Ed.). (1991). New perspectives on historical writing. Pennsylvania State University Press.
Conrad, S. (2016). What is global history? Princeton University Press.
Cronon, W. (1983). Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England. Hill and Wang.
de Certeau, M. (1988). The writing of history (T. Conley, Trans.). Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1975)
Febvre, L., & Martin, H.-J. (1976). The coming of the book: The impact of printing 1450–1800 (D. Gerard, Trans.). New Left Books. (Original work published 1958)
Ginzburg, C. (1980). The cheese and the worms: The cosmos of a sixteenth-century miller (J. Tedeschi & A. Tedeschi, Trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published 1976)
Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (Eds.). (1983). The invention of tradition. Cambridge University Press.
Iggers, G. G. (1997). Historiography in the twentieth century: From scientific objectivity to the postmodern challenge. Wesleyan University Press.
Kasper, M. (2004). Die Walser: Geschichte einer Bevölkerungsgruppe im Alpenraum. Haymon Verlag.
Le Goff, J. (1980). Time, work and culture in the middle ages (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1977)
Le Roy Ladurie, E. (1978). Montaillou: The promised land of error (B. Bray, Trans.). Braziller. (Original work published 1975)
Levi, G. (1988). Inheriting power: The story of an exorcist (L. G. Cochrane, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1985)
Mathieu, J. (2009). History of the Alps, 1500–1900: Environment, development, and society (M. Hefti, Trans.). West Virginia University Press. (Original work published 1998)
Moretti, F. (2013). Distant reading. Verso.
Netting, R. M. (1981). Balancing on an Alp: Ecological change and continuity in a Swiss mountain community. Cambridge University Press.
Novick, P. (1988). That noble dream: The “objectivity question” and the American historical profession. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816550
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.
Scott, J. W. (1988). Gender and the politics of history. Columbia University Press.
Trouillot, M.-R. (1995). Silencing the past: Power and the production of history. Beacon Press.
Viazzo, P. P. (1989). Upland communities: Environment, population, and social structure in the Alps since the sixteenth century. Cambridge University Press.
White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press.
White, R. (1991). The middle ground: Indians, empires, and republics in the Great Lakes region, 1650–1815. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511584671
Wolf, E. R. (1982). Europe and the people without history. University of California Press.
Worster, D. (1979). Dust bowl: The southern plains in the 1930s. Oxford University Press.
Zinsli, P. (1976). Walser Volkstum in der Schweiz, in Vorarlberg, Liechtenstein und Piemont: Erbe, Dasein, Wesen (4th ed.). Kommissionsverlag Desertina.
