{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01892744479495268, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005407841369986481, 'mean_word_length': 5.529411764705882, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Matrices of Materialist Historiography

The current fascination with material culture has enriched the dialogue between the traditionally complementary disciplines of economics and history. Nevertheless, when they meet in the camp of economic history, economists and historians have found themselves speaking a different language. It is not that the economist finds evenements relating the minutiae of historical research to be the product of long division in the age of computerized equations, or that the deferential historian is chagrined by the marvels of differential calculus. What is at issue between the post-Braudelian world and the post-Keynesian one is not a vocabulary of words as opposed to one of numbers, but rather a divergent perspective born of different assumptions and goals.2 For the economist, there are two universals -statistics and theory. Rules governing publication in the Journal of Economic History and the Economic History Review express this concern by demanding that articles have general theoretical interest-as if particularist historical research were the last bastion of an irrelevant antiquarianism. For the historian, on the other hand, there is only one criterion-meticulous research. Theory remains at best eclectic, at worse nonexistent, always pragmatic, and rarely verbalized. In a review article of Immanuel Wallerstein's The Modern World System (Journal of Modern History 48 [1976]: 685-92), for example, Herman Kellenbenz provides a critical summary, probing the historiographical problems simplified or distorted by Wallerstein. Kellenbenz challenges the application of a center-periphery model but never confronts its theoretical implications because, as he himself admits, historians remain impressed if still perplexed by such tours de force. Sharing a common interest is not sharing a common program. The materialist history boom has thus far yielded only an illusory, superficial bond in interdisciplinary studies because of a methodological disjunction in the identification and interpretation of past and present categories. There is no disagreement that materialist history takes as its focus tangible and measurable points of reference in society and economy. But