Abstract
Among the most telling asymmetries in the documentary record of the Walser people is the temporal distribution of what was recorded and when. Legal privileges, charters, and governance arrangements appear in the written record from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries onward — early, detailed, and preserved with the institutional care that formal legal documentation received in medieval and early modern administrative systems. Costume, folklore, domestic material culture, ritual practice, and the decorative and expressive dimensions of Walser community life appear, if they appear at all, in the ethnographic literature of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries — late, fragmentary, already modified by the pressures of modernization, and filtered through the interpretive frameworks of outside observers who came to document what they feared was disappearing. This asymmetry is not a neutral feature of the historical record. It is a diagnostic indicator of a fundamental principle governing what institutional systems preserve: institutions record what power needs, not what life needs. The charters survive because lords needed them. The costumes had to wait for the folklorist. This essay examines what that difference reveals about the relationship between documentation, power, and the systematic distortion of historical understanding that follows when scholars mistake the archive’s priorities for history’s priorities — and confronts, as honestly as the evidence allows, the additional problem that we cannot know how much of the expressive and symbolic dimension of Walser material culture was ever legible as such to the communities that produced it, or whether the categories through which the ethnographic record organized its late recoveries were the categories that Walser life itself employed.
1. Introduction: What the Archive Chose to Keep
An archive is not a mirror of the past. It is a record of what specific institutions, operating under specific conditions of power and resource, decided was worth the labor of preservation. This observation is not new — it has been made, with varying degrees of theoretical elaboration, by historians from the Annales school through the postcolonial critique of historical knowledge — but its implications are not always drawn with the precision that specific cases demand. The Walser case demands that precision, because the asymmetry between what is preserved early and what is preserved late in the Walser record is not a minor historiographical inconvenience but a structural feature that determines, to a significant degree, which questions about Walser life can be asked at all and which are foreclosed by the silence of a record that was never organized to answer them.
The early Walser record is, as the preceding papers in this series have repeatedly noted, a legal record. It consists of charters, letters of privilege, property documents, governance agreements, rent rolls, and the other instruments through which the formal relationship between Walser communities and the feudal powers above them was established and maintained. These documents exist because both parties to the relationships they recorded needed them. Lords needed documentation of the arrangements under which Walser settlers occupied their territories, the obligations those settlers owed, and the legal basis for the revenues the settlements generated. Walser communities needed documentation of the privileges that protected their legal status, guaranteed their self-governance rights, and distinguished their condition from the serfdom that afflicted comparable populations. The charter was an instrument of mutual interest in a world where legal rights, unrecorded, were legally vulnerable. It was preserved because its loss would have damaged interests capable of demanding its preservation.
The late Walser record is something entirely different. The ethnographic literature of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that documents Walser costume, folklore, dialect, domestic practice, and material culture was produced not by the communities themselves but by outside observers — folklorists, dialectologists, anthropologists, and cultural journalists — who came to Walser communities with the specific purpose of recording what they perceived, correctly in most cases, as a disappearing way of life. The motives behind this documentation were various: scientific interest in linguistic and cultural survivals, romantic nostalgia for pre-modern community forms being swept away by industrialization and urbanization, nationalist interest in recovering folk traditions as evidence of ancient cultural roots, and in some cases genuine concern for the preservation of threatened community identities. What all of these motives shared was their externality to the communities being documented. The folklore was recorded because outsiders wanted to record it, not because the communities themselves generated institutional demand for its preservation.
The gap between these two modes of documentation — the early, internal, power-driven legal record and the late, external, romantically motivated ethnographic record — is the subject of this essay.
2. What We Know: The Two Archives and Their Different Timelines
2.1 The Early Legal Record
The documentary record of Walser communities begins, in its surviving form, with the legal instruments of the medieval period. The founding charters, letters of privilege, and governance agreements that established Walser communities in their high alpine settlements are dated from the twelfth century onward, with a concentration of surviving documents in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries that corresponds to the peak period of Walser migration and settlement. These documents are not evenly distributed across the Walser world — some communities are better represented than others, depending on the fate of the archives in which their documents were held — but they provide, in aggregate, a reasonably rich basis for reconstructing the formal legal structure of Walser settlement.
The legal record extends beyond founding documents into the ongoing administrative and judicial transactions of established communities. Property records, inheritance documents, dispute resolutions, rent registers, and records of elections and community governance decisions appear with increasing frequency through the late medieval and early modern periods, reflecting both the growing administrative density of the political systems within which Walser communities operated and the communities’ own recognition that written documentation of internal arrangements provided security against the legal vulnerabilities of oral agreement in an increasingly document-dependent world.
What this record provides is a detailed, longitudinal account of the formal institutional life of Walser communities — the rules, the rights, the obligations, and the governance arrangements through which community life was formally organized. What it does not provide — and what no one generating or preserving these documents had any institutional interest in providing — is any account of the texture of the life conducted within that formal framework: the practices, the material culture, the expressive traditions, the daily routines, the embodied knowledge, and the symbolic dimensions of community existence that constituted, for the people living them, most of what life actually was.
2.2 The Late Ethnographic Record
The systematic documentation of Walser material culture, costume, and folklore did not begin in earnest until the nineteenth century, and was largely a product of two overlapping intellectual movements: the European folklore and ethnography movement, which sought to document the cultural practices of rural and mountain communities before they were transformed by modernization, and the dialect geography movement, which sent trained linguists into the field to record spoken language varieties before they were displaced by national standard languages. Both movements were animated by a sense of urgency — the sense that what they were documenting was already in the process of disappearing — and this urgency shaped the character of the resulting record in ways that have consequences for how it can be used.
The ethnographic documentation of Walser costume is a representative case. The elaborate regional dress forms associated with various Walser communities — the embroidered aprons, the distinctive headdresses, the community-specific color and pattern traditions — appear in the record primarily in the form of late nineteenth and early twentieth century descriptions, illustrations, and photographs, supplemented by the physical survival of garments in regional museum collections. The earliest of these records were produced at a moment when Walser costume was already being displaced by the clothing of the surrounding national cultures, and in some cases the garments documented were already occasional or ceremonial rather than daily wear. The record, in other words, captures Walser material culture at a point of transition rather than at a point of vitality, and the transitional character of what was documented introduces systematic distortions that are difficult to correct.
The folklore record presents analogous problems. The stories, songs, proverbs, and ritual practices documented by nineteenth and twentieth century folklorists were recorded in communities where the conditions that had originally sustained these traditions were already changing. The informants who provided the material were typically elderly, already positioned in the transitional space between traditional and modernizing community life, and their accounts were inevitably shaped by memory, nostalgia, and the expectations of the outside investigators who solicited them. The resulting record is not worthless — it preserves material that would otherwise have been entirely lost — but it is a record of a tradition in decline, filtered through the categories of outside observers, and it cannot be straightforwardly read as evidence for what Walser expressive culture looked like at any earlier period.
3. What We Don’t Know: The Symbolic Dimension of Material Culture
3.1 Function and Symbol as Entangled Categories
The most consequential unknown in the study of Walser material culture is the one that the late and externally generated ethnographic record is least equipped to address: how much of that material culture was symbolic rather than functional, and what symbolic work it was doing for the communities that produced and used it.
This question is complicated from the outset by the difficulty of maintaining a clean distinction between function and symbol in the analysis of material culture. Objects and practices in human communities rarely carry purely functional or purely symbolic significance; they typically carry both simultaneously, with the balance varying by object, context, community, and moment. A Walser house is functionally adapted to the conditions of high-altitude life in ways that can be analyzed with reasonable confidence. But it is also, in all likelihood, a statement — about household identity, about community membership, about the relationship between its builders and the tradition they were extending or departing from — and the symbolic dimension of the statement is not separable from the functional dimension of the object. The house that keeps out the cold also, if the community has a symbolic vocabulary for reading built form, says something about the people inside it.
The problem for Walser studies is that we do not have reliable access to that symbolic vocabulary for the period when the traditional architectural and material traditions were vital. The late ethnographic record provides some evidence about how communities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries understood specific elements of their material culture — some accounts of what particular costume elements signified, some descriptions of the social occasions on which specific objects or practices were appropriate, some records of the meanings attributed to specific decorative motifs. But this evidence is thin, uneven, and comes too late to be straightforwardly applied to material forms that had been in use for centuries before anyone thought to ask what they meant.
The consequence is that we are in the position of having the objects — the surviving garments, the documented house forms, the recorded folklore — without reliable access to the interpretive frameworks that would have made those objects legible to the communities that used them. We can describe Walser costume. We cannot say, with confidence, what a specific garment communicated to a Walser community in the fourteenth century, or whether the communication it made then was the same communication it made in the nineteenth century when the folklorist arrived to document it.
3.2 Whether Any of It Was Ever Primarily Symbolic
A further layer of uncertainty concerns not the meaning of specific symbolic elements but the prior question of whether the categories of symbolic and functional, as applied by outside analysts, reflect the organizing logic of Walser material culture at all. There is a persistent tendency in ethnographic and archaeological analysis to search for the symbolic dimensions of material culture — to ask what objects mean, what they communicate, what ritual or expressive function they serve — on the assumption that material culture in all human communities carries symbolic weight alongside its functional uses. This assumption is broadly supported by the anthropological record, but it can be applied with insufficient attention to the specific conditions under which particular communities produced particular objects.
For Walser communities operating under the constraints of extreme altitude, short growing seasons, and the constant pressure of subsistence in a demanding environment, the functional requirements of material culture were severe and non-negotiable in ways that the functional requirements of material culture in more resource-abundant settings were not. A roof that failed symbolically could be replaced or reinterpreted. A roof that failed structurally could kill the household beneath it. In an environment where the margin between adequate and inadequate was narrow, the priority of function over symbol in the design of objects was not merely a cultural preference but an ecological imperative.
This does not mean that Walser material culture was without symbolic dimension. It means that the ratio of functional to symbolic weight in Walser material objects may have been different from the ratio in communities operating under less severe constraints, and that applying the interpretive frameworks of symbolic anthropology — developed primarily in the study of communities with greater material surpluses and therefore greater capacity to invest in purely expressive production — to Walser material culture may systematically overestimate the symbolic density of objects whose primary logic was functional. The elaborate costume documented by nineteenth century folklorists may have been richly symbolic. Or it may have been primarily practical dress that acquired retrospective symbolic loading in the context of cultural loss, as communities facing the erosion of their traditional ways of life began to invest the objects of those ways of life with the emotional and identity weight that the traditions as living practices had previously carried. We cannot know which of these accounts is closer to the truth, and the late character of the ethnographic record means that the evidence we have is precisely the evidence generated at the moment when symbolic loading of this retrospective kind would have been most active.
4. The Interpretive Frame: Institutions Preserve What Power Needs
4.1 The Principle and Its Consequences
The organizing principle of this essay — that institutions preserve what power needs, not what life needs — is not a cynical claim about the deliberate suppression of inconvenient knowledge. It is a structural observation about the relationship between institutional function and documentary production. Institutions generate and preserve documents in relation to their own operational needs. A feudal administration needed records of the legal arrangements governing its territories; it generated and preserved those records because their loss would have impaired its functioning. It had no operational need for records of the daily life, the material culture, the expressive traditions, or the symbolic world of the communities it administered; it generated no such records, because their absence created no institutional problem.
The consequence of this structural logic, applied over centuries and across the range of institutions that generated and preserved the medieval and early modern documentary record, is an archive that is extraordinarily well stocked with the materials of formal institutional life — law, administration, governance, property, obligation — and almost entirely empty of the materials of everyday life as it was actually lived by the vast majority of the population. This is not a feature unique to the Walser record; it characterizes the documentary record of pre-modern Europe broadly. But it is particularly consequential for the Walser case because the most historically significant aspects of Walser civilization — the ecological knowledge, the material culture, the expressive traditions, the social practices that sustained community life in extreme conditions — are precisely the aspects of life that institutional documentation had no reason to record.
The implication is that the existing documentary record of Walser communities is not a sample of Walser life from which representative inferences can be drawn. It is a systematically biased selection, organized by the operational needs of institutions whose priorities were not the priorities of the communities they administered, and whose records therefore reflect those institutional priorities rather than the actual distribution of significance in Walser life. The legal arrangements are overrepresented because power needed them. The material culture and expressive traditions are underrepresented because power had no use for them. Drawing conclusions about Walser life from the distribution of evidence in the archive, without correcting for this bias, produces a picture of Walser civilization organized around its legal and institutional dimensions — precisely the picture that the preceding paper in this series identified as reflecting the prestige bias of national historical synthesis.
4.2 What Power Needed the Law to Record
The specific content of the early Walser legal record reflects the specific needs of the institutional powers that generated it with considerable precision. The charters record the arrangements that secured the lords’ revenues and the settlers’ legal status — the elements of the relationship that both parties needed to have formally established and preserved. The property records serve the twin needs of establishing inheritance rights and providing a basis for taxation and rent assessment. The governance documents record the arrangements under which community self-administration operated in a way that satisfied the lords’ need to know that order was being maintained without requiring them to bear the cost of maintaining it directly. Every element of the legal record can be traced to an institutional need that motivated its generation.
What this means, concretely, is that the legal record is a record of the relationship between Walser communities and the power structures above them — a record of the interface between the Walser world and the institutional world that surrounded and nominally controlled it. It is not a record of the interior of the Walser world — of how communities organized themselves in the spaces and moments where the institutional interface was not operative, of what they valued and practiced and made and said when they were not engaged in the formal transactions that generated documentary traces. The interior of Walser community life, which was most of Walser community life, was invisible to the institutions that generated the record, not because it was hidden from them but because it was not theirs to administer and therefore not theirs to document.
4.3 What the Folklorist Came Too Late to Find
The nineteenth-century folklorist who arrived in a Walser valley with notebook and curiosity was, in one sense, attempting to recover what the institutional archive had always excluded. The motives were different — romanticism and scientific curiosity rather than administrative need — but the impulse to document the non-institutional dimensions of community life was a genuine corrective to the archival bias that had governed documentation for centuries. The problem was the timing. The folklorist came when the traditions being documented were already in retreat, already modified by the pressures of modernization, and already being interpreted by community members through the lens of loss.
A tradition documented in retreat is not the same as a tradition documented in vitality. The costume that in the fourteenth century was worn because it was what one wore — because it was the practical, available, community-standard clothing of a high alpine pastoral community — may by the nineteenth century have been worn on specific occasions as a conscious performance of identity, already freighted with the self-consciousness of a community that knew its way of life was under pressure. The folklore that was, in some earlier period, the living imaginative world of a community may by the time of documentation have become the preserved heritage of an older generation, already separated from the daily practice that had originally given it vitality. The language that was recorded by the dialectologist was the language of elderly speakers, already operating in a community where younger members were shifting to the surrounding national language and where the traditional variety was therefore already in the process of losing the full range of contexts in which a living language operates.
None of this makes the late ethnographic record worthless. It preserves material that would otherwise have been entirely lost, and the distortions it introduces, while real, are not so severe as to make it useless as evidence. But it does mean that the ethnographic record of Walser material culture and folklore cannot be read as a transparent window onto Walser life at any earlier period, and that the gap between what was documented and what had existed is larger, and differently shaped, than the record itself reveals.
5. The Deeper Implication: History Written From the Wrong Evidence
The asymmetry between the early legal record and the late ethnographic record of the Walser people is not, in the end, simply a problem for Walser studies. It is an instance of a general problem in the writing of history: the systematic tendency to construct historical accounts from the evidence that happens to survive, without adequate attention to the relationship between what survives and what existed, or between the priorities of the institutions that generated the surviving evidence and the priorities of the human lives those institutions administered.
When historians write about medieval Walser communities primarily on the basis of the legal record, they are not simply making the best of limited evidence. They are, whether intentionally or not, organizing their account around the priorities of the feudal administration that generated that record — around law, privilege, obligation, and the formal structure of the relationship between lords and settlers — and correspondingly underweighting everything that the feudal administration had no reason to document: the practices of daily life, the material culture, the expressive traditions, the ecological knowledge, and the social relations that constituted, for the people living them, the substance of existence. The history that results is, in a precise sense, a history organized by the needs of power rather than by the needs of understanding.
This is a more severe indictment than it might initially appear. It is not merely a complaint that historians have neglected interesting topics. It is a claim that the systematic bias of the archive toward what power needed has produced a systematic distortion of historical understanding — a picture of pre-modern community life organized around its institutional and legal dimensions, with everything else relegated to supplementary illustration, when in fact the institutional and legal dimensions were the surface of a much deeper and more complex social reality that the archive was structurally incapable of recording. The Walser case makes this distortion visible with unusual clarity because the gap between what the legal record can tell us and what we need to know to understand Walser civilization is so large, and because the late ethnographic record, for all its limitations, provides at least a partial glimpse of what the legal record entirely excludes.
The corrective this recognition demands is not simply the addition of ethnographic evidence to legal evidence, though that is a necessary start. It is a more fundamental reorientation of historical method — a willingness to treat the archive’s silences as evidence, to ask systematically what the institutions that generated the surviving record had no reason to document and why, and to develop the alternative evidential strategies — architectural analysis, linguistic evidence, palynology, ethnoarchaeology, comparative ethnography — that can partially substitute for documentation that was never produced. This is the methodological program that this series of papers has been, in various dimensions, articulating. The asymmetry between costumes and laws is one of its clearest and most instructive illustrations.
6. Conclusion: The Archive as Argument
The archive is an argument. It is an argument, made through selection and preservation over centuries, about what matters — about which transactions, which arrangements, which relationships, and which communities were significant enough to merit the labor of recording and the resources of preservation. The argument of the Walser archive, as it has come down to us, is that what mattered about Walser communities was their legal relationship to the powers above them. Everything else — what they wore, what they said to each other, what they believed, what they made, what they celebrated, how they mourned, and what they found beautiful — did not matter enough to record.
This is not the argument of the Walser communities themselves. It is the argument of the institutions that administered them and the scholars who later inherited the record those institutions produced. The Walser communities, had they been asked, would presumably have identified the texture of their daily life — the practices, the material culture, the expressive traditions, the seasonal rhythms of a high alpine existence — as at least as significant as the legal arrangements that governed their formal relationship with feudal authority. But they were not asked, and the record generated by those who were in a position to ask was generated without reference to what they might have answered.
The costumes arrived late in the record because they had no institutional patron. The laws arrived early because they served institutional needs that could not afford to leave them unrecorded. Understanding this difference — understanding it precisely, and drawing from it the methodological and interpretive consequences it demands — is not a minor correction to historical practice. It is a recognition that the history written from the archive, as conventionally understood, is systematically organized around the priorities of power in ways that distort the historical understanding of everyone whose lives power administered but did not bother to record. The Walsers are one case among very many. But they are an unusually instructive case, because the gap between what their institutional record preserves and what their civilization actually was is wide enough, and clear enough, to make the principle unmistakable.
What the folklorist found, arriving a century too late in a valley whose traditional life was already receding, was not a complete Walser expressive culture. It was a remnant — valuable, irreplaceable, and profoundly incomplete. The completeness that was lost was not lost to neglect or misfortune. It was lost to the prior silence of an institutional system that preserved what power required and let everything else take its chances with time.
Notes
Note 1 — On Trouillot’s Framework and Its Application. Michel-Rolph Trouillot’s (1995) analysis of silences in historical production distinguishes between silences that occur at the moment of fact creation, at the moment of fact assembly into archives, at the moment of narrative retrieval, and at the moment of retrospective significance. All four types of silence operate in the Walser case. Facts were never created because the institutions present did not record material culture. Archives were assembled around legal documents because those had institutional custodians. Narrative retrieval organized itself around the available documentary record. And retrospective significance attributed to Walser civilization the character that the surviving record gave it rather than the character that a fuller record might have revealed. Trouillot’s framework does not address the alpine case specifically, but it is the most precise general framework available for analyzing the structural production of historical silence.
Note 2 — On the History of Costume as a Scholarly Field. The academic study of historical costume has developed substantially since the late twentieth century, moving from descriptive inventory toward the analysis of dress as a communicative system encoding social status, gender identity, community membership, and cultural memory. Key contributions include Barthes’s (1967) semiological analysis of the fashion system, Crane’s (2000) sociological account of fashion and social identity, and the collection edited by Barnes and Eicher (1992) on dress and identity. Applied to Walser costume specifically, this framework raises exactly the questions that Section 3 of this essay identifies as unanswerable with current evidence: what social information did Walser dress encode, for whom was that encoding legible, and how did the communicative function of dress change as the communities wearing it changed? The scholarly framework exists; the evidence to apply it to the Walser case in any rigorous historical depth does not.
Note 3 — On Oral Tradition and Its Documentary Recovery. The recovery of oral tradition through late documentary means — the transcription and publication of folklore, songs, proverbs, and narrative traditions collected from elderly informants by nineteenth and twentieth century folklorists — is a widespread feature of the European ethnographic record that affects many minority and regional communities beyond the Walsers. The theoretical and methodological problems of this mode of recovery have been analyzed extensively in oral tradition studies, including the foundational work of Lord (1960) on oral-formulaic composition and Ong’s (1982) analysis of the differences between oral and literate cognitive styles. The specific problem of documentation occurring during cultural transition — when traditions are already modified by the pressures that are making them the object of preservation concern — is addressed by Bauman and Briggs (1990) in their analysis of the politics of performance and entextualization.
Note 4 — On the Distinction Between Archives of Administration and Archives of Culture. The distinction between documentary records generated by administrative institutions and cultural records generated by communities themselves, or by observers of those communities, maps onto a broader distinction in archival theory between the records of governance and the records of life. Institutions of governance — states, churches, noble administrations — generate records systematically as a byproduct of their administrative functions, and these records survive with relative consistency because they have institutional custodians with ongoing interests in their preservation. Cultural records — the expressive, symbolic, and material productions of community life — survive through much less systematic processes, dependent on the accidents of individual interest, community memory, and the absence of the disruptions that destroy fragile physical objects and living traditions. The Walser case illustrates this distinction with unusual clarity because the asymmetry between administrative and cultural documentation is both extreme and well-defined.
Note 5 — On Regional Museum Collections as Evidence. The physical survival of Walser material culture — garments, tools, domestic objects, decorative items — in regional museum collections in Switzerland, Austria, and Italy represents an important evidential resource that complements the documentary record in ways that have not been fully exploited. Museum collections typically record acquisition date, provenance, and sometimes the circumstances of collection, providing metadata that can help establish the period and context of original use. However, museum collections of folk material culture are subject to systematic biases: they tend to preserve exceptional or aesthetically striking objects rather than typical ones, objects associated with special occasions rather than daily use, and objects that were recognized by collectors as culturally significant rather than objects that were simply worn or used. The resulting collections are not representative samples of Walser material culture but curated selections reflecting the aesthetic and ethnographic priorities of the collectors who assembled them.
Note 6 — On the Politics of Folkloric Recovery in the Nineteenth Century. The nineteenth-century folklore movement that generated much of the late documentary record of Walser expressive culture was not a politically neutral enterprise. Across Europe, the documentation of folk traditions was entangled with nationalist projects of cultural identity construction — the search for authentic popular roots that could underwrite claims of national distinctiveness and historical depth. In the German-language context, this entanglement was particularly strong, from the Grimm brothers’ collection of folktales to the systematic documentation of dialect and folk practice that the German philological tradition pursued throughout the century. Walser communities, as German-dialect speakers in multi-ethnic alpine territories, were of interest to this project in specific ways that shaped what was collected and how it was framed. The folklore record is therefore not only a late and transitional record but a politically motivated one, and the interpretive frameworks imposed on Walser material by nationalist folklore scholarship require critical examination that they have not always received.
Note 7 — On the Possibility of Recovering Symbolic Meaning from Material Evidence. The question raised in Section 3 of this essay — whether and how the symbolic dimensions of Walser material culture can be recovered from the physical record in the absence of contemporary interpretive accounts — is one that the field of material culture studies has engaged with extensively, with methods ranging from contextual analysis of object associations in archaeological deposits, to the comparative study of symbolic systems in related communities, to the application of semiological frameworks to the formal properties of objects. None of these methods can recover the specific interpretive frameworks of a community that is no longer available to provide them, but they can generate constrained hypotheses about the range of meanings that the formal properties of specific objects could have supported. For the Walser case, the most productive approach would likely combine close analysis of surviving objects with comparative reference to the symbolic systems documented in related alpine communities where ethnographic records are richer.
References
Appadurai, A. (Ed.). (1986). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819582
Barnes, R., & Eicher, J. B. (Eds.). (1992). Dress and gender: Making and meaning in cultural contexts. Berg.
Barthes, R. (1967). The fashion system (M. Ward & R. Howard, Trans.). Hill and Wang. (Original work published 1967)
Bätzing, W. (2003). Die Alpen: Geschichte und Zukunft einer europäischen Kulturlandschaft. C.H. Beck.
Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.000423
Benjamin, W. (1968). Theses on the philosophy of history. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (H. Zohn, Trans., pp. 253–264). Harcourt, Brace & World. (Original work published 1940)
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507 (Original work published 1972)
Burke, P. (1978). Popular culture in early modern Europe. Temple Smith.
Certeau, M. de. (1988). The writing of history (T. Conley, Trans.). Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1975)
Clanchy, M. T. (1993). From memory to written record: England 1066–1307 (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
Crane, D. (2000). Fashion and its social agendas: Class, gender, and identity in clothing. University of Chicago Press.
Entwistle, J. (2000). The fashioned body: Fashion, dress and modern social theory. Polity Press.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Pantheon. (Original work published 1969)
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.
Kasper, M. (2004). Die Walser: Geschichte einer Bevölkerungsgruppe im Alpenraum. Haymon Verlag.
Lord, A. B. (1960). The singer of tales. Harvard University Press.
Mathieu, J. (2009). History of the Alps, 1500–1900: Environment, development, and society (M. Hefti, Trans.). West Virginia University Press. (Original work published 1998)
Mauss, M. (1954). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies (I. Cunnison, Trans.). Cohen and West. (Original work published 1925)
Miller, D. (1987). Material culture and mass consumption. Blackwell.
Netting, R. M. (1981). Balancing on an Alp: Ecological change and continuity in a Swiss mountain community. Cambridge University Press.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. Methuen.
Rancière, J. (1994). The names of history: On the poetics of knowledge (H. Melehy, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1992)
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.
Stoler, A. L. (2009). Along the archival grain: Epistemic anxieties and colonial common sense. Princeton University Press.
Thompson, E. P. (1963). The making of the English working class. Victor Gollancz.
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.
Weiss, R. (1959). Häuser und Landschaften der Schweiz. Eugen Rentsch Verlag.
Wolf, E. R. (1982). Europe and the people without history. University of California Press.
Zinsli, P. (1976). Walser Volkstum in der Schweiz, in Vorarlberg, Liechtenstein und Piemont: Erbe, Dasein, Wesen (4th ed.). Kommissionsverlag Desertina.
