Any critical analysis comparing the studies of William Cronon and Thomas Silver must begin with the latter's avowed intention to take "Cronon's work as my structural and methodological model." Both researchers approach their self-assigned tasks - examination of New England and South Atlantic colonies, respectively, in terms of "ecological history" - from the historian's perspective; in so doing, they defer to the scientific community in terms of adequate establishment of the ecological assumptions upon which they rely. Both delve extensively into original source materials, i.e. written accounts by colonial observers, as well as cross-referencing their studies with secondary-source interpretations of the colonial period made by other historians. A major limitation is admitted by each writer: that the Native American input of source materials is exceedingly sparse due to their lack of written language(s) during the period studied; anthropological "hard" evidence has been utilized to supplement the historians' pool of information.
Although the approach and time frames largely correspond - both studies ending in the year 1800 - the reasonings behind the particular focus for each historian diverge in a manner indicative of, perhaps, different intentions. Cronon offers no explanation of his reasons for limiting his study to New England or, indeed, why that particular region is examined in particular. His reasoning may be "obvious" - space limitations, field of study, et al. - but his precision in defining an area and a conclusion can also support an assumption that he deliberately sought out an example to fit his thesis. It is interesting to note that Cronon makes no apologies for assigning "Europeans" the blame for destruction of the pre-colonial ecosystem, while limiting his examination exclusively to English settlements. Were the French settlers to the near north following the same patterns? Sweeping generalizations of "Europ...