cultcontactorcolonialismamantv70_000

7/28/2019 CultContactorColonialismAmAntV70_000

1/21

Society for American Archaeology

Culture Contact or Colonialism? Challenges in the Archaeology of Native North AmericaAuthor(s): Stephen W. SillimanReviewed work(s):Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 70, No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp. 55-74Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40035268 .

Accessed: 06/11/2011 16:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40035268?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40035268?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam


2/21

CULTUREONTACT RCOLONIALISM?HALLENGESN THEARCHAEOLOGYFNATIVE ORTHAMERICAStephenW. Silliman

Whathasfrequentlybeen termed "contact-period"archaeologyhas assumed a prominentrole in NorthAmericanarchae-ology in the last two decades. This article examines theconceptual oundation of archaeological "culturecontact"studiesby sharpening heterminologicaland interpretivedistinction between "contact"and "colonialism."Theconflationof thesetwo terms,and therebyrealmsof historical experience,has proven detrimentalto archaeologists'attemptsto understandindigenousand colonial histories. In light of thispredicament,the article tackles threeproblemswith treatingcolonialismas culture contact:(1) emphasizingshort-termencountersrather thanlong-termentanglements,whichignorestheprocessand heterogeneous orms of colonialism and the multifaceted ways that indigenouspeople experiencedthem; (2) down-playing theseverity of interactionand theradicallydifferent evels of political power,whichdoes little to revealhow Nativepeople negotiatedcomplexsocial terrainbut does much odistance "contact" tudies romwhat should be a relatedresearchfocus in the archaeology of Africanenslavementand diaspora; and (3) privileging predefinedcultural traits over creativeor creolizedculturalproducts,which loses sight of the ways thatsocial agents lived theirdaily lives and thatmaterial cul-ture can reveal,as much as hide, the subtletiesof culturalchange and continuity.Lo quefrecuentemente e denominaarqueologiadel "periodode contacto" ha adquiridoen los ultimos 20 ahos unpapelprominente n la arqueologianorteamericana.Estetrabajoexaminael legadoconceptualde los estudiosarqueologicossobreel contacto culturaly aclara la importantedistincionterminologicae interpretativa ntre "contacto"y "colonialismo."Latendenciaa confundir mbosconceptos,ypor lo tantoel mundode las experienciashistoricas,haperjudicadoel intentoarque-ologico por comprenderanto la historiaindigenacomo la colonial. Bajo semejantepredicamento,este articulo abordatresproblemas que se generan al equipararcolonialismo con contacto cultural: (1) poner enfasis en los encuentrosde pocaduration en vezde las relacionesprolongadas lo que ignora lasformas y los procesos heterogeneosdel colonialismo,asicomo las multiplesdimensionesde las experiencias ndigenas,(2) ponermenoratencion a la intensidadde la interacciony alos gradosdepoder politico tandiferentes, o quenopermiteapreciarcomo la genteautoctonanegocioen contextossocialescomplejos,promoviendoademds un distanciamientoentre los estudios de "contacto"y las investigacionesafines sobre laarqueologiade la esclavitudy didsporas africanas; y (3) privilegiar rasgos culturalespredefinidos obre ormas culturalesnovedosas o criollas, lo que impideapreciarlasformas en las que agentessociales vivieronsus quehacerescotidianos,olvi-dando a la vezque la culturamaterialpuede revelar,asi comoocultar, as sutilezasdel cambioculturaly de la continuidad.

of culture contact and colonialismhave assumeda recognizableplacein con-temporaryarchaeology.Whether n NorthAmerica,LatinAmerica,SouthAfrica, westernAfrica,Australia, rHawai'i,archaeologists avemade enormous trides n documentinghe com-plexitiesof interaction etween ndigenouspeopleand heexpandingEuropeanmercantilist ndcap-italistworldeconomyandpolitical sphereof thelast half-millennium.The implications of thisresearchare broadandprofound,notonly affect-ingtheunderstandingf localhistories, dentities,

and indigenousculturalsurvivalbut also illumi-nating heglobal trajectories f European-derivedimperialexpansion,colonialism,anddecoloniza-tion. Some havebroadened hisprojectby consid-ering culture contact and colonialism inprecapitalistand "precontact"ontexts in LatinAmerica,Mesopotamia,ndelsewhere Alexander1998; Cusick 1998c;Dominguez2002; Gosden2004;LyonsandPapadopoulos 002; SchortmanandUrban1998;Stein2002), a worthwhile ffortthatmay ultimatelyhelpbreakdownthe artificialdisciplinary arrier etweenhistoricalandprehis-Stephen W. Silliman Department f Anthropology,Universityof Massachusetts,Boston, 100 MorrisseyBoulevard,Boston,MA 02125-3393 ([email protected])

AmericanAntiquity,70(1), 2005, pp. 55-74Copyright2005 by the Society forAmericanArchaeology55


3/21

56 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 70, No. 1 2005

toricarchaeologyhatcurrently indersdiscussionabout historicalprocesses and culturalhistories(Lightfoot1995;Williamson2004).Although a researchinteresttruly as old asAmericananthropology, focus on NativeAmer-icans in NorthAmerica'sso-called contactperioddid not assumeapositionof archaeological romi-nence until the 1980s. This is despitethe wide-rangingacculturationresearchin anthropologyduringhe1930s,suchasthatsummarized yHer-skovits(1958), which did notengageconsistentlywiththe material ecordof Native historiesavail-able hrough rchaeology. spractitionersf North

Americanarchaeology ecognize,a central mpe-tus for the expandedresearchprogramwas pri-marily the approach of the 1992 Columbianquincentennial,he500-yearanniversaryfColum-bus's ateful1492 andfallntheCaribbeanhatush-ered nEuropeanolonialismandexpansionntheAmericas. Another influence involved the 1990passageof the NativeAmericanGravesProtectionandRepatriation ctbytheU.S.Congressbecausethislegislationpromptedmorecollaborativeworkbetween archaeologistsand tribal members.Inanticipation f thequincentennialndin recogni-tion of the lacunae narchaeologicalesearch eal-ing with the period, a number of influentialpublications ppearedhatgrappledwith issues ofEuropean colonialism and Native Americanresponses (Fitzhugh 1985; Ramenofsky 1987;Rogers1990;RogersandWilson1993;TaylorandPease 1994;Thomas1989, 1990, 1991;Walthalland Emerson1992;Wylie 1992; see also Axtell1995).Sincethen, he subfieldhasexpanded xpo-nentiallyacrossNorthAmericaandelsewhere,andrecentlyarchaeologists avebegun o takestockofthe field (Cusick1998b;Deagan 1998;Lightfoot1995; Murray1996, 2004a, 2004b; Rubertone2000;Silliman2004b).My goalinthis article s to offera differentper-spectiveon culturecontactand colonial archaeol-ogy, especiallyas practiced n North America:Iseek to interrogatehe terms andparametershatdefine t. Inparticular,wantto examine he theo-retical,historical,andpolitical mplicationsof thetermsculturecontactandcolonialismastheyper-tain o thearchaeological tudyof indigenouspeo-pleinpost-Columbian orthAmerica. argue hatwe have not paid enoughtheoreticalattention othe basis of ourinquiries:"What he quincenten-

nialthrowsntorelief s the needforarchaeologiststo takeresponsibilityor the work theirresearchdoes in a world hat s structuredyclassist,racist,and sexistpolitics"(Wylie 1992:593).I take thischargeseriouslyandsuggestthat hewaywe talkaboutand presentour researchon "contact" nNorthAmerican rchaeologysproblematicortheway it "doeswork"withinthedisciplineand out-side of it.The articleargues hatanuncriticaluse of cul-turecontact erminology orclearlycolonialcon-textsdoesthefollowing: 1)emphasizes hort-termencounters over long-term entanglements;(2)downplays the severity of interactionbetweengroupsand theradicallydifferentevels of politi-cal powerthat structuredhoserelationships; nd(3) privilegespredefined nd almostessentializedcultural raitsovercreative, reolized,ornovelcul-turalproducts. am notthe firstto haveconcernsabout heterminology f culture ontact Hill1998;Murray1996:202,2004b:215;Paynter2000a:9,200Jb:202)or abouttheproblemsof uncriticallylinkingculture ontact othe acculturationmodelsof the first half of the twentiethcentury(Cusick1998a),but I hopeto deepen he discussionshere.At a theoreticalevel,thisarticleattemptso rethinkthe metaphor sensuKuhn1979) of "contact"nNorthAmericanarchaeologyin the hopes thatchangingthe metaphorwill recast the processcolonialism that t purportso represent. agreewithWilliamson'sconcern hat "thecurrent on-ceptualnstrumentshatwe areusing oinvestigatecontactareactuallymaking he ob of understand-ingmoredifficult"2004:191),but ocomplementherproposalor reating recontact/postcontactis-toriesas a continuumafterLightfoot1995),I seekto revisit the "contact"erm itself.The metaphorof "contact" tructures ot only ourconceptsandinterpretationsf the interactions f NativeAmer-icans andsettlersbutalso the mental mage ormedby our audiencesandcollaboratorswhenwe nar-rate hose histories.

Drawing DistinctionsCulturecontact or colonialism?The pointaboutterminology may seem pedantic,but conflatingcolonialism with contact underwritesmisunder-standingsof indigenouspeople in NorthAmeri-can archaeology.An anecdotewill illustrate.A


4/21

Silliman] CHALLENGES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF NATIVENORTH AMERICA 57

revieweroncequestionedme on amanuscripton-cerningNative Americans ivingandworkingona nighteenth-centuryancho n California Whydid I call this contextculturecontactwhenit wasclearlycolonialism? The rancho and adobe sitehadbeen occupiedin the 1830s and 1840s by ahandfulof Mexican Californiansand around athousandCaliforniaIndianpeople laboring n avarietyof economicroles(Silliman2004a).Someconductedthis laborvoluntarily;others workedundercoercion and force. The reviewer mpliedthatI downgraded oth theseverityof interactionandthe extentof possible changethathadalreadyoccurrednNativeAmericangroups mplicatednthisparticularolonialsettingust by usingtheter-minology.That is, could RanchoPetaluma,theresearch ite,reallybe considered"contact"f therancho nvolvedwillingand forcedNativeAmer-icanlaborers, ome of whom had beenin or nearSpanishand henMexicanmissions for morethan30 years?At the time I brushedoff the criticismas a matterof semantics becauseI reallymeantcolonialismwhen I said culturecontact.Infact,Icontinued o use the term n my publications Sil-liman 2001a, 2003) despite some consternation(Silliman 2004b), and numerousarchaeologistshavealso used contacteven while otherwisecare-fully arguingand elucidating complex colonialprocesses (Carlson2000; Cobb 2003a; Deagan1998;Johnson1997;Lightfoot1995;Lightfootetal. 1998;Loren2001b;NassaneyandVolmar 003;Wagner2003).However, after a few years of reflection, itbecameclear hat his nvolvedmore hana seman-tic problem.Referring o my northernCaliforniaresearch s contactdidseem to downplay,at leastterminologically,he violence of the colonial ron-tier; helaborregime orcedon indigenouspeopleby settlerpopulations;hepresenceof nonindige-nous groups n the generalregionfor more thanthreedecades;and the ensuingmaterial, ultural,andpoliticalentanglement. beganto reflect onhowstudents, ublicvisitors otheexcavation, ndmyNativeAmerican onsultantsmusthave houghtaboutmy efforts o call this context"culture on-tact."The samegoes for my currentarchaeologi-cal research n Eastern equotTribalNationhistoryin southeastern onnecticut.How couldI considermy archaeologicalworkon theseventeenth, igh-teenth,andnighteenth enturiesof southernNew

Englandpartof the"contact eriod"when heEast-ernPequotTribalNationcommunityhad been ona colonial reservation ince 1683 afterenduringsevere casualties and dislocation following thePequotWarof 1636-37?Simplyput,I cannot,norcanmy tribalcollaborators."Cultureontact" emainsaproblematic hrasefordescribing ll indigenous-colonialnteractionsin NorthAmericaandelsewhere,and we need toreconsiderurconceptual aggage.A recent eviewof therelationship etweenhistoricalarchaeologyand anthropological rchaeologyexpressedcon-cern that"historical rchaeologyhasyet to find areplacementorthebland Contact eriod'" Payn-ter2000a:9).Yetthe research tself is notbland; tis instead requentlymislabeled, ometimesunder-theorized,andas aresult,remarkably isempow-ered. Indigenous people, particularly n NorthAmerica,find the last five centuriesof attackontheir cultural raditions,heritage,and lives morepolitically chargedthan simple "contact"mightconvey.In addition,we conductourarchaeologyin a disciplinethat traces ts heritage n colonial-ism, notin contact,butwe haveyet to fully cometo gripswith thatlegacy (Gosden1999;Thomas2000).As a result,we face a largeproblem n theways that we presentour studiesof indigenous-European ncounters olely as "contact"pisodesto archaeology's ariousaudiencesandcollabora-tors,whetherndigenousdescendantommunities,thegeneralpublic,or students.Atissue are heexplicitand mplicit eatures hatdifferentiate ontact rom colonialism.Therefore,Ibeginby clarifyingmyuse of these ermsand heirapplicabilityto different regional traditions inarchaeology.The article ocuses on NativeAmer-ican interactionswith Europeansand Europeandescendantsbecausearchaeologistswho researchNativeAmericans n the timesfollowingEuropeansettlementendto refer o theirperiodandtopicofinterest as contactrather han colonial. Perhapstellingis the likelynoncoincidentalack of NorthAmericanrepresentationn a recentvolume enti-tled TheArchaeologyof Colonialism LyonsandPapadopoulus002), inwhich the idea of "culturecontact" eems nowhere o be found.Although hisarticlecenters on NorthAmerica,archaeologicalwork pertainingto AboriginalAustralia shouldofferpertinent arallelcases,eventhougharchae-ologists working hereseem moreattuned lready


5/21


to the colonial natureof these historicalcontacts(Harrison2002; Harrisonand Williamson2004;Murray 004a,2004b).Moreover, do notexpectthatmy points about culturecontactnecessarilywill havethe sameresonancewith LatinAmericanarchaeologists,or they do not regularlyconfusecolonialism by calling it contact. The problemseems to lie in the study of regions north ofMesoamerica's rban ities and hinterlands.

TerminologyContact, rculture ontact, tandsasageneralermusedby archaeologistso refer ogroupsof peoplecominginto or staying n contact or days, years,decades,centuries,or even millennia. n itsbroad-estusage,thiscontactcanrange romamicable ohostile,extensive ominor,ongterm oshortdura-tion,or ancient orecent,and tmay ncludea vari-ety of elements such as exchange, integration,slavery, olonialism,mperialism, nddiaspora.tspotential alue ies inofferingacomparativerame-work for the study of interculturalnteractions,encounters, ndexchanges,apoint llustrated y avolume that ntegrates arious imeperiods,studyareas,andpointsof view (Cusick 1998c).Cusickhasdefinedculture ontactas "apredispositionorgroupsto interactwith 'outsiders' a necessitycreatedhrough umandiversity,ettlement attern,and desire for exchange and to wantto controlthat nteraction"1998b:4).Schortman ndUrbandefineculturecontact n the same volume as "anycase ofprotracted,irectnterchanges mongmem-bersof socialunitswho donot share he same den-tity" 1998:102).Gosdenrecentlyoffereda similardefinitionbut with attention o colonialism: "Asthere s no suchthingas an solatedculture,all cul-tural ormsare ncontactwith others.Culture on-tact is a basic human fact. What differentiatescolonialismromotheraspectsof contactare ssuesof power" 2004:5).Inwhatfollows,my critiqueof culturecontactarchaeologynNorthAmericadoes notattemptoundermine hevalue of culturecontactstudiesona broader evelbut,rather,o illustrate he ineffec-tivenessof this term or studiesof colonialism.Asa result of culturecontactbeing a "basic humanfact,"the terminologyrapidlybecomes vacuousanduninformative,articularlynthecaseofNorthAmericacolonialism.Similarly, think hatwe are

fully preparedo grapplewiththespecificcontactcases of colonialismandneed not waitwhile we"developtheoryand methodsappropriateo thestudyof culture ontactn all timeperiods"Schort-manandUrban1998:104).Colonialism eedscon-siderationn its historicity Dirks 1992;Thomas1994).Similarly,we mustbe waryof thenegativeconsequencesof terminological lippagefor ouraudiences. fcolonial ntrusionsntotheAmericas,Africa,andAustralianvolveonly "predispositionsforgroups o interactwith 'outsiders,'"hedefini-tion neutralizes olonialismandsimplifies ndige-nousexperiencesof it, likely accounting orwhythe term is no longer in vogue in culturalanthropology.Colonialisms generallydefinedas theprocessbywhich acity-or nation- tateexertscontroloverpeople termed ndigenous andterritories ut-sideof itsgeographical oundaries.1his exertionof sovereigntys frequently utnotalwaysaccom-plishedthroughcolonization,which involves theestablishmentf coloniesthatadministertatecon-trol, manageinteractions,and extract abor,rawmaterials,and surplus(Alexander1998). Colo-nizationusually akesplace nthe contextof impe-rialism,whether, or example,expansionby theAztec and Incain ancienttimes or Europeansnthe last 500 years.However,as developed urtherbelow, care must be takennot to conflatecolo-nization,a vehicleor manifestationf colonialism,with colonialism,a process. Colonialismin themodernworld, although sharingelements withothercolonialtimes,operatedon "fixedordersofracialand culturaldifference" Gosden2004:22)and resultedfrom the trajectories f geographicexpansion,mercantilism,and capitalism(Orser1996).This colonialism s the focus of my article.Othershave made it clearthat this kind of colo-nialismmaynotapply o the ancientworld,whereone can sometimesargue or colonies (e.g., tradediasporas)without colonialismin Mesopotamia(Stein 2002) or even colonialism withoutcolo-nization n the MediterraneanDominguez2002).By definition,heprocessofremoving oloniesor transferring olitical control from colonizingentity to independent ettlementsor burgeoningnations is decolonization,a conditionthat trulyhappened in the "modern"world only in themid-twentieth entury.Thisphenomenonaysthefoundation orpostcolonialstudies n humanities


6/21

Silliman] CHALLENGES INTHE ARCHAEOLOGY OF NATIVENORTH AMERICA 59

and socialsciences.Althougha useful formaldef-inition,treatingcolonialism(andits end) in onlythis structuralmannerdeflects attention rom theways thatindigenouspeople may have struggledwiththe realitiesof colonialandsettler ocieties ntheir erritories. ntheonehand, videnceaboundsindicatinghatshiftsfromcolonialtopostcolonialperiods anbringabout hangesnotonlyin admin-istrative and governmentalcontrol but also inindigenous experiences, opportunities,and con-straintsn a systemof domination.LatinAmericais a caseinpointwhere he loss of Spanishcontrolof Mexicointheearly1820s resultednthe endofNew Spainand its colonies and thebeginningofthe Republican period, with new contexts forindigenouspeople to act, react, and counteract(LangerandJackson1988).Onthe otherhand, he end of a settler ociety'sstatusas a colonydoes not necessarilymean thatthis administrativeabelchangehas salience orallinvolved, s illustratedgainbytheendof theSpan-ishEmpirenthe Americas.Although he shifts npoliticalcontrol n 1821 markeda new period ntheprevious ominions f theSpanishCrown,ron-tier locationssuch as Californiadid not witnessmeaningfulshifts for the California ndianswhoworked n Franciscanmissions and toiled on ran-chos and n pueblos.That s, indigenousresidentscontinued or anotherdecade in the mission andanother wo and ahalf decades n the ranchosandpueblos before Californiawas annexedby theUnitedStatesn 1848. Californiawas nolongerpartof a Spanishcolonyandmight arguablynot havebeen a colony of Mexico but, rather,a territorialextension f thesolidifyingnation-state. et heendof "colony"or "colonization"n formalhistoricaltermsdid not mean he end of colonialism or Cal-ifornia Native people. The 1830s and 1840sremained"colonialCalifornia" orNativepeopleengulfedin its problemsandprospects Silliman2004a), making my earlier anecdote pertinentdespitenotbeing "Spanish olonial"proper.The same can be said forindigenouscontextsinthe UnitedStates rom tsinception.Gosdenhasargued hatrather hanenteringa postcolonialordecolonizedrealmfollowing independence romthe British Empire, "the egalitarianAmericanrepublic orcedIndians o do whatthe FrenchandBritishempirescould not:to become truecolonialsubjects"2004:30).Formany ndigenouspeople,

theinternal olonialism hatoccurs whena settlerpopulationcontinues to try to exertcontrol oversocial,political, conomic,cultural, ndsexualrela-tionsdidnotceaseintothetwentieth entury. omewouldargue hat t continues oday n anumber fforms(Churchill1998):"Suchcontinuitiesmakeitdifficult o believethatwe arepost-colonialany-thing otherthan a formalsense, with the dividebetween hecolonialand hepost-colonialmakinglong-termhistoricalanalysismoredifficult"Gos-den 2004:156).The "colonialperiod" s a defin-ablemoment nhistory or certain egions,but hisperiodization f historybased on the structure fthe settlernationcannotbe allowed o box incolo-nialismas a process.Therefore,use thetermcolonialism nthisarti-cle to refer othedualprocess 1 ofattemptedom-inationby a colonial/settlerpopulationbased onperceptions and actions of inequality, racism,oppression,aborcontrol,economicmarginaliza-tion,anddispossessionand 2)ofresistance, cqui-escence, andliving through hese by indigenouspeoplewho neverpermitheseprocesses obecomefinal and completeand who frequentlyretain orremakedentitiesand raditionsn theface of oftenbrutal onditions.The atter itscomfortablywithinthegenreof postcolonial heorythathasprolifer-atedin the last few decadesfollowingbroadscaledecolonization but does so in a materiallygrounded,ratherthan textuallyprivileged, way(Gosden2004:18-23). Thisgives archaeology tstheoreticaland empirical power.The latteralsoindicatesthatI do not mean for a focus on colo-nialism o entaila focus ontop-down hange,over-arching European powers, or deterministicoutcomes.Whatmatters s thatwe do not call theserelationshipsprimarily"culturecontact" or thethreereasonsI developbelow.Emphasizing Encounter over Entanglement

The firstproblemwithlabelingcolonialismas cul-turecontactconcerns hewaya long-termprocessof colonialentanglements representeds apoten-tially short-durationollision of distinctcultures.Even hougharchaeologistsavedocumentedong-term culturecontact,this terminologyshouldnotapply o colonialcasesinNorthAmerica.The abel"contact"mplies,particularlyononarchaeologistaudiences, a short-durationevent, novelty of


7/21


encounter,eparate istoriesof contactinggroups,and the importanceof exchange relationships.Although nemightquestionwhether uchencoun-tersare"culture"ontactatall,thesituationsunderthis rubricare a differentbreed than the colonialinteractionshatcharacterizedull-scaleEuropeansettlement of indigenous areas. These types ofencountersdid occur,even in areas latercharac-terizedbycolonialism,asexemplifiedbytheEuro-pean explorers ailingthe watersof easternNorthAmerica,westernNorthAmerica,and the PacificIslands in various centuries. They includedmoments of first(sometimes additional)contactand exchange material,genetic, epidemiologi-cal, sexual that hadprofoundconsequences orlater interactionsand the demographicsustain-abilityof indigenousgroups.As Nicholas Thomas (1991:83-84) demon-strates orMelanesia,Europeansheld no positionduring irstcontact o enforcedemandsorlabor asituationhatGosden 2004]wouldstillterm"mid-dle ground"colonialism). Europeansmay haveapproachedheirencountersand the indigenouspeoplewith whomtheymadecontact romacolo-nialmind-set,but he nteractions ftenconstituteda differentorder han the settlement,missioniza-tion, and exploitationthat frequentlyfollowed.Sahlins's1981, 1985)workonencounters etweenPacific Islandersand Britishsailors,particularlyCaptainCook, offers examples of this type ofencounter. ahlinscharts he culturalhistoriesandcontextfrom which Hawaiiansand other Nativeislanders nderstoodheBritishwhoexploredheirislandsand their interactionswith them, tracingout the different experiences and strategiesemployed by commoners and elite, men andwomen. Initialexplorationsby EuropeansalongCalifornia's oast offeranother xample,one thathas been investigatedarchaeologicallyLightfootandSimmons1998).Yet mostarchaeological tudiesthatfall undertherubricof culturecontactdo not concern heseinitialencounters,irstcontacts,or ntermittent is-its.Infact,archaeologistsften ry oo hard o focusontheseearlymomentsor at leastbelievethat heyare actuallyfocusing on such initial encounterswhentheyarenot:"Thecelebration f firstcontactsituationsalso distractsattention romimportantchanges that unfolded in remoteareas . . . [as]indigenous peoples of the Americas were con-

structing ew culturaldentitiesasthey adjustedoEuropean iseases, echnologies, nddistant owerstruggles" Hill 1998:148).After the decadesoreven centuriesof colonialism that characterizemuch of what North American archaeologistsstudy, uchasmissions, anches,rade utposts, ndmilitary tations, he notionof contact s inappro-priate.The same applies to Native villages andhouse sites associatedwith these settings:"Thusthehistorical rchaeologies f indigenous ocietiesdo not cease with contact(or shortlythereafter).Rather hey should be understood eallyto beginthen and to continueupto thepresent,as theydofor the colonial societies with which they sharelandscapesandexperiences"Murray 004a:8).Unfortunately,n NorthAmericanarchaeolog-icalparlance, rchaeologists enerallyabelNativeAmericansites as "contact," ot colonial, whenthey containEuropeangoods, but the Europeansourcesof thosegoodsandcontextsof multiethnicinteraction re referred o as "colonial," ot con-tact,sites. Orser 1996:59-60) hints at thepersis-tenceof this dilemmawhenhe astutelyobservesthat a collection of symposiumpaperson Frenchcolonialarchaeology esultedn twovolumes,oneon colonialism when talking about the French(Walthall1991)andone on contactwhentalkingabout heinteractions etweenFrenchandNativeAmericans (Walthalland Emerson 1992). Theinheritance f this site nomenclature tems n partfrom Fontana's 1965) earlyandhighly problem-atic classification ystem or "historic ites archae-ology," which included a five-part scheme:"protohistoric""contact,"postcontact,"frontier,"and"nonaboriginal."2lthough"protohistoric"nd"postcontact"re still in use, archaeologistseemto prefernow, in a shorthandmanner, o placetogetherundera "contact" ubricall studiesper-taining to indigenous-European encounters,whether irstcontacts n the 16thcenturyor indus-trial abor contexts n the earlytwentiethcentury(see Cobb2003b).3However, heselong-term ontextswe mistak-enlycall "contact"nvolvetheintertwining f his-tories,experiences,and structures f colonialism.As Hill (1998) has argued, he sameperspectivesthatmightilluminateparticularmomentsof firstcontactdo not sufficewhenconsidering ong-termprocessesof powerrelationsand violence. Simi-larly, "a model of acculturation,developed to


8/21


explaincross-culturalxchange, s not an appro-priatemodel for studies of conquestor colonial-ism"(Cusick1998a:138).Considering collisionof cultural nderstandings ay(ormaynot,accord-ing to Obeyesekere[1992]) reveal what NativeHawaiians"thought" s CaptainCook sailed theritualpathof Lono,but these models of culturalinteractionannotprovideanalyticalaccess to theunequalrelationsof power, abor,economy,gen-der, sex, andpoliticsthatwrappedup colonizersandcolonizedalike nlater imes andotherplaces.As Byrne(2003:83)has recently argued or her-itage preservationn New SouthWales,Australia,dividingthese realmsartificially"disentangles"indigenous ndsettlerhistoriesandpromoteshemassegregatedulturalxperiences.Herightlynotesthat this is a politicalprocessof representation,eventhoughperhapsmorea resultof entrenchedprotocolsof archaeologicalraining, unding,andpolicies. These are the disciplinaryrutsthat wemustescape,asLightfoot 1995)hasarguedortheprehistory-history divide in North Americanarchaeology.Rather hanepisodesof contactbetween nde-pendent ultures truggling implyto makecogni-tive sense of each other, colonialism is aboutintersections.ntersections f identities,relations,and intimacies require a different perspectivebecause hey nvolve ntanglementHarrison004;N. Thomas1991 WilliamsonandHarrison 004),"shared istories" nd sharedpredicamentsMur-ray 1996, 2004a, 2004b),andan "intertwiningftwo or moreformerlydistincthistories nto a sin-gle historycharacterizedy processesof domina-tion, resistance, and accommodation" (Hill1998:149). The entangling, sharing,and inter-twiningdo not unify;however,"the existence of'sharedhistories'and 'shared dentities'does notmean thattherecan everbe, or should everbe, asingleaccount f thosehistoriesorthose dentities"(Murray 004b:215).Autonomous, elf-containedculturesdo notexist ncolonialism, omethinghatWolf(1982) demonstrated ver two decadesago;instead, ndividualswalk the fine, often painful,line between old ways and new directions,pastpracticesand futurehopes, dangerous imes anduncertainutcomes.Thisdoes notdenyculturalra-ditionsandcognitiveunderstandings,oes notsug-gest thatgroupshave no identityboundariesorresistant ractices, nddoes not nsinuate hatcolo-

nialismis final or determinant.What it does sug-gest,however,s thatcallingsuch nteractions con-tact"provides ittleclarityandobscures he natureof multiple ntersections.Archaeologistmight argue hat"contact" nlyserves as a convenient abel,one pastwhichtheyquicklymove to discusscolonialrelationships, utthe term holds implications or disciplinaryprac-ticeand forpresentation f archaeological esults.Drawingon Wolf's(1982) classicanalogy oriso-latedcultures,Payntermakes a poignantobserva-tion about conceptual terminology and itsimplications:"Unfortunately, ords ike 'ContactPeriod'commonlyusedby archaeologistso talkabout he nteraction etweenwould-becolonizingEuropeansand theirtargetssound too much likethecomforting lick of billiardballsonthe cosmicbilliard ableof worldhistory" 2000a:9).Extend-ingthismetaphor,hesebilliardballs donotmergeand reformas theirpaths ntersect,andtheyonlycanbreakupon mpactwithotherballs.As aresult,some archaeologists, therscholars,andparticu-larlythegeneralpublicstill lookonlyfor the shat-tered indigenouspeople scattered about on thevelvet,crackedopenorforced ntopocketsby the"white"cue ball. This is a problematicview ofcolonialismand ndigenousaction,and tsgreatestimplications may be in the way archaeologicalreportings perceivedby nonspecialists.The common image of contact manipulatesprocess nto event.Onecan recallaculture ontactepisode as a bounded,historical event peoplecome intocontact, heychangewithrespect o oneanother's raditions,and a finalproductappears.This forms the core of acculturationaradigmsnthe 1930s(Herskovits1958).Murray umsupthisdilemmawithrespect o Australia:

Where nce hehistoricalrchaeologyf Abo-riginalAustraliamighthavebeenconceived fas thearchaeologyf "contact,"n encounterof briefduration fterwhichIndigenous eo-plebecame rchaeologicallyndistinguishablefrompoorwhite ural rurban opulations, enow understandhat heprocesss morecom-plicatedandambiguousandmorelikelytoyieldcounter-intuitiveesults) 2004b:215].The same issues hold for NorthAmerica:"Asthe inheritors f a long traditionof 'frontier'his-tory,we are ndanger et againofconceivingNorth


9/21

62 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 70, No. 1 2005

Americannterculturalontactsas brief,decisive,andone-sided confrontations ather han as pro-tracted,cumulativeand reciprocalassociations"(Wood1994:486).Whethernarchaeological ub-lications,museums,or historicparks,we canpre-sent these contact events as severed and distinctfrom the present, as fleeting albeit significantmomentsin worldhistory.The public particu-larlymainstream merica maylike the comfort-ingclick,amomentaryound n a largerhistoricalnarrative that frequently centers on Europeanexpansionand the rise of the modernworld,butindigenouspeople whose historieswe purportorecover and studyfind that click less thancom-forting:"Whydowe putthis distancebetween hiscontactperiodof historyandourselves? t is polit-ically safer andemotionally ess taxing" Wilson1999:5).Unlikenotionsofcontact, olonialism orces herecognitionthat these metaphoricallyuntenableballs are actually partof much largernetworks,opento negotiation,and in fact all transformednthose intersections. n manycases, so-called iso-lated cultures affectedeach other with materialitems, diseases, and incursions ong beforefull-fledged colonialism gained momentum (Wolf1982).Thenotionof individual ultures hemselvesinthe "modernworld"mayeven be a colonialcre-ation (Dirks 1992), and the boundedethnogeo-graphicmapsofearlyanthropologyhat till nformarchaeologistsoday, or betterorworse,area caseinpoint.Colonialism,as ananalytical ramework,ushers in a consideration f social agents indi-gene,colonist negotiating ew,shared ocial ter-rain orgednsustained ontact. tdoes notpresumehomogeneousculturesbumping nto one another,especiallyas "colonialsettlementswerepluralis-ticentrepotswherepeoplesofdiversebackgroundsandnationalitiesives,worked, ocialized,andpro-created"Lightfoot1995:201).Colonialism s not about an eventbut,rather,aboutprocessesof cultural ntanglement,whethervoluntary rnot,in a broaderworldeconomyandsystemof labor, eligiousconversion, xploitation,material alue,settlement, nd sometimes mperi-alism. We find it much harder o pinpointwhencolonialism, ratherthan the "ContactPeriod,"ended.Colonialism s anunfinished,diversepro-ject that cannot be ignored n today's contempo-raryworld,even if consideringonly its extensive

legacy.It ties thepastto thepresent "we are stillin the contactperiod"Wilson1999:6) andgivesremarkablealience ocontemporarytrugglesorindigenouspeople (Gosden 2004; Lilley 2000;Murray 004a;Thomas2000).

Downplaying Severity and PowerA secondproblemplaguingculturecontactstud-ies is thewaythatnotionsof contactcandownplaycolonialrelations fpower,nequality, omination,andoppression.The problemhas plaguedaccul-turation tudiessince they begandrawingon the1936 "Memorandumor the Studyof Accultura-tion"(Redfieldet al. 1936) becausepowerwaseitherignoredor downplayed o the pointthat itwasthen mplicitly ssumed o residewith he"con-queror"seeCusick1998a:129-132).Colonialismpropernvolved nstitutional ndpersonal elationsofpower, aborandeconomichierarchy,ttacks ncultural ractices ndbeliefs,andoftenracismwithdirecteffectsonindigenouspeopleand heir trate-giesor abilities or survival.Yet t didnot strike ne-sided,"fatal mpact"blowsto indigenousgroups,despite he factthat he classic"first ontact" asesof autonomousnteraction ftengave wayto vio-lence andattempted enocide(Hill 1998).To characterizeolonialism,somemightarguethatarchaeologistsalreadyhave a way of distin-guishingdifferentkindsof contact hatemphasizethe natureof inequalityandpowerrelationships,such as "directed" ersus "nondirected"ontact(Spicer1962;seeCusick 1998a:137-139).Recentarchaeologicaltudieshaveused hatdistinctionorreasonablenterpretationsSaunders 998;Wagner1998),butI wonderwhywe still botherwithsucha termas directedcontact or NativeNorthAmer-ica when colonialismbettercaptures he processand links ourarchaeologicalwork to broaderhis-torical and anthropologicalstudies. I have metmany culturalanthropologistswho recoil at thethought hatarchaeologists tilluse the term cul-ture contactto describecolonialprocesses.Evenconsideringwhat culturemeansto participantsnthe nteraction, thenotionof 'culture ontact' ailsto take nto account hat, n colonialcontexts,cul-turalprocesseswere themselveseffectsandformsof power"(Den Ouden 2005:16). Moreover,itwould be hard to imaginehow Schrire's(1995)book Digging throughDarkness, about South


10/21

Silliman] CHALLENGES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGYOF NATIVENORTH AMERICA 63

Africanarchaeology, istory,andpersonal xperi-ence,mighthavediffered andIwouldargue,ostsignificant mpact hadshe not talkedaboutcolo-nialismandinstead ocused on directedor nondi-rectedcontact.4Her thirdchapter,"Chronicles fContact,"utlinesmuchmore hanculturesbump-ing into each other;she (1995:49-70) describesencountersnSouthAfricabetween he DutchandKhoikhoiaspalpablyandstrikingly olonial.Therecognitionof violence and harshrealitiesdoes not at all mean thatNorthAmericanarchae-ologistsnow need to thinkof somethingike"con-quest" s a validmodel far rom t,infact.Despiteits commonusagein LatinAmerica,conquesthasbeen criticized venin thathistoricalradition s aterm thatportraysoo "final"of a scenariowhentheon-the-groundealitiesweremorecomplexandnegotiated Taylor1994:154).Thepointis to rec-ognizehow violence- andpower-freehenotionofcontactcan be. Take, or instance, he words of aLatin American historian: "The Spaniards'encounterwith the Indianswas notsimplyculturecontact n whichbeneficial nnovationswerefreelyadoptedor mergedwith the existingcultures.Itwas a conquest"Hassig 1994:147).Culture on-tact transforms ere into a restatement f accul-turation, nd ikely Hassig s not theonlyone whoundergoeshat erminological lip.The needto rememberheviolence,disparities,and intersectionsduringcolonialism should notdispelpossibilitiesof contactepisodeswherepeo-ple met as autonomousgroupsand neither hadpoliticalorpowerswayoverthe other.Anthropol-ogists and historianshave used these importantcases tolevycriticismsof the"fatalmpact"modelthatportraysEuropean ontactdeliveringa one-sided crushingblow to a passive and incapableindigenous opulation. hesecontact ases,orwhatGosdenbetter erms"middle round olonialism,"haverevealedhowindigenous esistance ndagen-dashelpedcharthetrajectoryf later elationshipsand how indigenous people made sense out ofcolonists andtheir material ulturebased on pre-existingmeanings nd raditionse.g.,Clarke 000;Rogers1990;Whelan1993).

Yet we mustconsidercarefully hemanyyearsofpostcontactife for NativeAmericansandrecallthediversity f indigenous xperiencespossible nthe realmof colonialentanglement.Forinstance,Native Americans who traded with Jesuit mis-

sionaries at small outpostsnearthe GreatLakeswould have had very differentexperiencesthanthose in southernCaliforniawho were forcedtowork from dawnuntil dusk underthe control ofCatholic Franciscanmissions. Maritime ndige-nous groups along 16th-centurycoastal Mainewouldhavehadverydifferent xperiences radingwith European ishingvessels thanseventeenth-centuryeasternMassachusettsgroupswho wereproselytized n "Praying ndianTowns"by Eng-lish colonistsandviolently ncarcerated fterKingPhilip'sWar n 1675. Evenin severecases,NativeAmericans n Californiaand New Englandwhobattledmilitarilywith invadingEuropean orcesinterfacedverydifferentlywithcolonialism thanmembers of those same indigenousgroupswhowere incorporated nto colonial households asdomestics or fieldhands.I doubt thatany justifi-cationexists forcategorizingall of theseinstancesundera "culture ontact" abel.If takentoo far,one mightclaim thatmy criti-cism of culture ontact ouldportray llindigenouspeopleas passivevictimsin a colonialscheme orall indigenoushistoriesas subsumed n a broadercolonialnarrative.However, uchapositionwouldbe academically alse andpoliticallydisengaged.Rubertonenotes thatwe run the "riskof encour-agingexplanationshatemphasize olonialencoun-ters as the single transforming,f not traumatic,event nNativepeoples' ives,ratherhanacknowl-edging theirabilityto withstandand sometimesresist these invasionsand the incursions hatfol-lowed"(2000:434^35). I agree strongly.How-ever,admittingheprofundity f the latterdoesnotrequire that we abandon a focus on colonialprocesses n placeof anemphasison culturecon-tact. It simplymeans thatwe have to devise moresophisticatedanalytical enses andterminologiesthatcancaptureheuniqueness f indigenous xpe-riences, lives, andtraditionsn colonial or post-colonial eras. We must be vigilant to preventaneeded ocusoncolonialism-as-contextrom urn-ing into an unwanted focus on colonialism-as-definingmoment.Recognizing overarching tructuresand rela-tionsofpower ncolonialismdoes notdeny ndige-nousagencies, ntentions, esistances, rtraditions.In fact, quite the opposite is true,despite earlyanthropologicalraditions hat ocused on the for-mationof "conquestocieties" Foster1960).Con-


11/21


textualizingindividual action within a colonialworldplacessocialagents nreal-world ituationsanddistinctivepractices hroughwhichthey nego-tiate identitiesand communities.To ignorecolo-nialism's sharper edge means to overlook thesettings in which indigenouspeople frequentlyfound themselves aboring:missions,plantations,ranches, orts,mines,and arms.Focusingonlyoncasesof autonomous ontact, radeandexchange,or armed conflict abbreviates the diversity ofindigenousexperiences n post-ColumbianNorthAmericaandelsewhere."Contact eriod" esearchtends to privilege these moments. A balancedapproach mphasizes hecreativity, ractices,andresiliencyof indigenouspeopleand theseverityofcolonial rule, labor requirements, economicinequality, eligiouspersecution, ndso on. In con-trast o the casein actual"contact"ites,archaeol-ogists do not have an easy task of recoveringindigenouspeople n thosecolonialspacesof long-termdominationwhereindividuals ound it diffi-cult to stakea material rspatialclaim,butresultsarepromising Deagan1983, 1996;Harrison 002,2004;Silliman2001a, 2004a,2005).For nstance,Lightfoot t al. (1998)demonstratehepersistenceand negotiationof cultural dentitiesamongdif-ferentndigenous roups ohabitingwithin hecon-text of Russiancolonialism.As a wayof integratingolonialismandpowerwhenstudyingNorthAmericanndigenouspeople,thehistorical rchaeologies f slaveryofferapointofcomparison.Whydo historical rchaeologistsnNorth Americatypicallynot considerplantationslaverystudies as culturecontact?Are these notcases of different ultural roups i.e.,AfricanandEuropean) oming into regularcontact and con-fronting achother's ultural racticeswhilenego-tiating heirown?The few who havesituated heirwork nculture ontact tudieshaveexpressed ig-nificanthesitationandanxietyin doingso (Arm-strong1998;Singleton1998),particularlyecausetheirotherpublicationsrapple xplicitlywithcolo-nialismand tsvarious xpressionsSingleton1995,1999,2001).In the 1980s,manyplantation tudiesdrew onacculturationmodels derived from early-twenti-eth-centuryculturalanthropological esearchonNative Americans, but these attempts did notacknowledge heir ink to NativeAmericanssues(Singleton1998:174),nordidtheyevadecriticism

(Howson1990;Singleton1998).Howson(1990)has maintainedhat heseacculturation-styleod-elsdidnot rulyaddress hecomplexities f inequal-ity, resistance, and the structural order ofplantations, and Ferguson (1992) has arguedinstead for a model of creolization.In a relatedvein,Eppersonnotes thatemphasizinghepartialautonomyof oppressedslaves in creatingnewmeaningsandpractices s worthwhileandappro-priatebutthat"overemphasizingheautonomyofslave cultureruns the risk of mystifyingrelationsof power" 1990:35).I think he same outlookcansharpenourarchaeological iew of NativeAmer-icanexperiences n colonial times. Littleparallelto plantationsexists in cases that we mightcall"firstcontact" ituations n theAmericas,but thedivisionbreaksdownquickly hereafter hen acedwith colonial institutions ike missions,ranches,and mines or with noninstitutionalut stillstarklycolonialsettings.An answer to the questionof why plantationcontextsarenot characterized s culture ontact sthat he so-calledcontact iteratureurrently fferslittleclarity o theexperiences f enslavedAfricansor to plantation ocial order.This marksa sharpreversalof an earlier rend, n whichthe anthro-pologyof peoplewithAfricanancestryn the NewWorld ell squarelynacculturation,r culture on-tact,researchHerskovits 927,1958).Thereasonsfor the reversalare detectable n the hesitationofAfricanDiaspora cholars:"Plantationlavery anbe addressedwithin hestudyof culture ontactbutonly whenit is recognized hatrelationsof powerwerecentral o the construction f any nteraction"(Singleton1998:173).The needfor this disclaimershouldawakenmany"contactperiod"archaeolo-gists n NativeNorthAmerica o thenotion hat heirworkhasyetto grapple ullywith issues of powerandcolonialismand o examine hewaysinwhichindigenous people became implicatedin oftensevererelationsof inequality,abor,andracism.Forall the reasonscitedabove, heterminologyembeddedin culturecontactfrequently mpliesshort-durationncounters,autonomy,and, mostimportant t thisjuncture, abor-freeand culture-only relations. Such characteristicsdo little toaddress hefullrangeofAfrican ndAfrican-Amer-icanexperiences nplantations,ut hemorepress-ingdilemma s that ucha focus also doesrelativelylittle to illuminate he experiencesof indigenous


12/21

Silliman] CHALLENGES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF NATIVENORTHAMERICA 65

peoplewho oinedorwere orced ntoSpanishmis-sionsinFlorida,MexicanranchosnnorthernCal-ifornia,Russian radingpostson the PacificCoastof NorthAmerica,English "PrayingTowns" nNew England,or fartherafield SpanishandMexicanhaciendas n Mexico or settler ivestockstationsnnorthernAustralia.This results nplan-tationarchaeologists eeingthe work of historicalarchaeologists n NativeAmericansas irrelevant(measured y a relative ack of citations),despitethefactthatmanystudiesofcolonial-periodNativeAmericansactuallydo engagewithtopicsof cre-olization Cusick2000;Deagan1996, 1998;Loren2000), identities (Lightfoot et al. 1998; Loren2001a, 2001b, 2003; Silliman2001a;Voss2002),labor (Silliman 2001b, 2004a), and resistance(Rubertone1989;Scarry2001; ScarryandMcE-wan 1995).Againusing ack of citationsas ameasure, ul-turecontactarchaeologistsn NorthAmerica yp-icallyreturn he favorbynotconsultingplantationandslavery tudies orany insight nto thepoliticsand practicesof social inequalityand colonialadministration. he lack of engagement gnoresthe astute observations by Farnsworth(1989:230-231),afterstudyingboth slaveplanta-tionsandSpanishmissions nNorthAmerica, hatthese woinstitutions haremanyof thesamechar-acteristics. peaking roadly, ayntermakesa sim-ilarobservationbout ommon hemes n historicalarchaeological esearch:"The most obvioushis-toricalpointof common nterestandwork s inthecontactperiod.This too-often-ignoredperiodofcolonialismandconquest, n NorthAmerica andelsewherearound heglobe, saw themassive dis-locationof indigenouspeopleandtheirpracticesfrom crucial andresourcesby new ways of lifebasedoncapitalist ccumulation, hitesupremacy,andpatriarchy"2000b: 02).Archaeologists'workonindigenouspeoplemustbe recastso as to tacklethese broader issues of colonialism in NorthAmerica.

Complementinghe ackof attentiono colonialrelationshipsn NativeNorthAmerica, he discon-nectbetweenthe archaeologyof slaveryand thearchaeologyof Native-European"contact"alsorelatessubtly o theperceptionhatNativeAmeri-cans and Africans share no common heritage,despite he onepoignantyet diverseexperiencecolonialism that hetwohighlydiverse roupsdid

share.Colonialismdoes not offer theultimateori-ginof difference,raditions, ndcultural ractices,but it providesa context thatcannot be ignoredwhen discussing culture. The minimal overlapbetween those who profess to studythe contactperiodandthose who studyplantation lavery nNorthAmericaalso relates o theassumptionhatNativeAmerican ndAfricanhistoricalxperiencesin the Americaswere separate,despitethe multi-tudeof interethnic nionsbetween hemthatcarrystrongpoliticalconnotationsoday,particularlynNew England.This overlapshould be noticeablein a culture contact realm, but contact periodresearchersypically gnore t.Acknowledginghecomplex nterplay fcolonialismwouldrectify heimbalance.Finally,contactperiod archaeologiststypically do not engage with questionsof race,despite the importanceof this topic in culturalanthropologicaltudies of colonialism(e.g., DenOuden2004; Thomas1994) and AfricanAmeri-can archaeology Epperson1990;Franklin2001;Orser2000, 2003;Singleton1995).

Privileging Predefined Traits over CreativeCultural ProductsTo identifythe thirdproblemin culturecontactarchaeology equires ookingat definitionsof cul-turecontinuityandchange.Oneof themore diffi-cult positions upheld,however mplicitly,by thenotionofculture ontact s that he collisionofpeo-ple in the post-A.D. 1400 global word involvedonlyanexchange,adoption, etention, nddiscardof cultural raits.Acculturationmodelsare oundedonthisassumption.Althoughacculturationermi-nologyhas decreasedwithin hediscipline,hecoreideas oftenlinger,particularlynpopular nterpre-tationsof thepast:a "donor" ulture ntroduces oor forces on a "recipient"ulturenewideas,mate-rial,practices, r relations. nthisview,predefinedcultures,whetherEuropean rindigenous, hangebecauseof theirencounterswithotherculturalys-tems, typicallyinvolvinga directional hift fromwhattheyhad beenprior o contact oward ome-thing akin to the contacting culture. Distinct,bounded ulturesmakeupthepolesfromortowardwhich thesegroupsmove,despitethe multiethnicnatureof colonialism.Arkush 2000)offersa recent llustration f thepersistence f thisnotion.He(2000:194)arguesor


13/21

66 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 70, No. 1 2005

acculturations a valid ramework,orNativeAmer-icansbeingthe "receptorulture"albeitnotpas-sivelyso), and for nondirectedontact,all despitethe factthathisstudy nvolves ate-nighteenth-ndearly-twentieth-centurynteractionsn CaliforniabetweenPaiuteandEuro-American ettlers n whatis clearly colonialism. Although Herskovits(1958:119)warned gainst ssuminghat hechangewillalwaysbe towardwhiteEuropeanrAmericancultures,Native Americansaretypicallystillpre-sumed o move owardEuropeanness ith headop-tion of Westernmaterialgoods (forcritiques, eeLightfoot 1995:206-207; Orser 1996:60-66;Rubertone 989:34-36,2001:430-432).Alternatively, hat f insteadofbecomingmoreEuropean,howeverdefined,with the adoptionofintroducedmaterial tems, NativeAmericans orother ndigenouspeople ashionedawayto remainNative in very changedand very conflicted cir-cumstances?What fchangeandcontinuity as weoften thinkabout n archaeology arethoughtofas the same process?This does not presumeanessentialized dentitybut, rather,one that can bemaintained r mobilized,entrenched rregained,in colonialworlds.In seventeenth-centuryouth-ernNewEngland,Narragansetteopleconfrontedcolonialism,notcontact,head-onandaltered heirburial ndmaterial racticesostrategicallyurvivethecolonial world butnotby "acculturating"oEuropeannessNassaney1989; see the focus onresistance n Rubertone1989). In northernCali-fornia,ndigenouspeopleadoptedEuropeanmate-rial temsat the Russiancolonyof Ross(Lightfootet al. 1998) and at the Mexican-era RanchoPetaluma (Silliman 2001a) but in particularlyNativeways thatgive little indicationof "accul-turation."ntheGreatLakesregion, heChippewaand other ribalnationsused the fur tradeand nat-uralresourcesmarket,coupled with indigenouseconomicrelationsof reciprocity,o dodgeincor-porationnto acapitalist conomyfor close to twocenturiesCleland1992,1993).Other tudieshaverevealed that indigenous people changed theirmaterial epertoirewith the additionof Europeangoodsbut hat heyheldto traditional aysofusingthe landscapeandviewingplace, such as in NewEngland (Rubertone1989, 2000). These casesspeakof individuals iving throughnew colonialworlds,sometimesresistingandother imes mak-ing do, but neveracculturating.

We canperhaps hinkof cultures n contactasa wayto sortout theseissues,butI remainuncon-vinced thatsuch a notionoffersthe mostcompre-hensive framework.For one, the issues revolvearoundmore thana simplisticnotionof "culture"because heysummondentity, thnicity, ndactiveagency. Only in the 1990s with the influenceofinterpretive, ontextual,and feministarchaeolo-gies did agent-centered approaches secure afoothold n studiesof culture ontactDeagan1996,1998;Lightfoot1995;Lightfoot tal. 1998).Theseinterpretationselied not on atomistic,self-inter-ested individualsperformingon a colonial stagebut, rather,on culturallyproducedandculturallyproducing, historicallycontingentsocial agentsdealingwithcomplexsituations.These influentialcontributionserved o shiftemphasis romaccul-turation,which mpliedmoreone-waymovementsof culturalraits,otransculturation,hich nvolvedcomplexmixturesof cultural nd ndividualnter-actions hatoffered hepossibility fmultipledirec-tions of influence (Deagan 1998). They alsoinspiredefforts to look at the complex materialways thatindigenous people and settlersforgedaheadin colonial worlds (Harrison2002, 2004;Lightfootet al. 1998;Loren2001a, 2001b;Mur-ray2004a, 2004c; Rubertone 001; Scarry2001;Scarry ndMaxham2002;Silliman2001a,2001b;Wesson2002;see vanDommelen2002fora relatedexample).Theforgingaheadcreatespartof whatmightbetermed "colonialism'sculture"and constitutesapostcolonial heoryofcolonialism Thomas1994)."Colonialism'sulture"snotsimply mposed roma European ore orpre-givenas a uniform ntity;it is made,remade,andcontestedn"projects"ndin the interactionbetween individuals(Thomas1994;see also Gosden2004;Murray 004a).Thecreation f colonialculturesakesplaceboth nthecolonyand nthemotherland;t is notapush romcoretoperiphery. ariabilityharacterizesotonlyindigenousresponsesto colonial encounters N.Thomas1991 see Waselkov1993for an archaeo-logical example)but also theassumeduniformityof indigenousand colonizing groups(Lightfoot1995; Lightfootand Martinez1995; Schortmanand Urban1998:108-109;Simmons1988;Stoler1989;Thomas1994).Colonial rontiers,he front-line of muchsustainedEuropean-indigenouson-tact, manifested the fluidity and complexity of


14/21

Silliman] CHALLENGES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGYOF NATIVENORTH AMERICA 67

colonists sometimes not confidentof their ownidentitiesandrole in a broader olonizingscheme(Dirks 1992:7; Stoler 1989:137; Thomas1994:143-169),of colonists often farawayfromthecore ofpresumed ulturaluniformityn Euro-peannations(Lightfoot1995:200;LightfootandMartinez1995),andof individualsnteractingaceto face andnegotiatinghe detailsof life and den-tityon the cultural rontiersof colonialism.Colonialsettingstend to confuseourassump-tions about heeasily recognizable idesinculturecontact,notonlyinrevealingmorediversityntheseemingly homogenizedtwo sides of "colonial"and"indigenous"utalso nhighlightinghemove-ments of individualsn and out of those assumedsidesas they acquiesce o or contestvariouscolo-nialprojects.This vision of colonialismadmitsacontextually fluid and ambiguous, yet oftendefended, boundary between the presumeddichotomiesof colonizer and colonized (Murray2004a:10).Similarlywe haveyetto takeFerguson'sastutestatemento heart:"Althoughndianswerenativeto the New World,we may safely say thatneitherNativeAmericans,Europeans, orAfricanswere 'ancestrallyndigenous' o New Worldplan-tationsettlements"1992:xli)or,I would add,toothervenuessuch as missions and settlertowns.As aresult,archaeological iscoveriesof ceramicsfromEuropeor stone tools from ocal sourcesatacolonialsite donoteasily speakabout heiruses ortheirmobilizationn identities.Theseobjectsdo notsimplydemarcate cultures."Rather than arguingthat colonialism bringsaboutan opportunityor individuals,particularlyindigenousones, to suddenlyremake heir tradi-tions and to crafta new kind of instrumentalistidentity, heseperspectivesndicate hatcolonial-ism mustbe understood ssimultaneouslyreativeand destructive.Focusingon colonialismeasilysummons oliciesof destructionndscorched arth(andoftenshould!),but hese magesmustbe tem-peredwith the ways thatindigenouspeople (andcolonists)deviseda new worldof "shared"and-scapes, experiences, and histories. Such a per-spective s in no way apologetic:

Paradoxically erhaps, see colonialismasoftenbeinga sourceof creativity ndexperi-ment,andwhilecertainlynotbeingwithoutpain,colonialencounters ausethe dissolu-

tion of valueson all sides,creating ewwaysof doing hings namaterial ndsocialsense.A stress on creativitytakes us away fromnotionssuch as fatal mpact,dominationndresistance r coreandperiphery,mphasizingthatcolonialcultureswerecreated y all whoparticipatedn them,so that all had agencyand ocialeffect,withcolonizer ndcolonizedalikebeing radically hangedby theexperi-ence[Gosden 004:25].Inno way should hisperspectivebe construedas buildingup a notion of colonialismas a "good

thing,"norshould t takepostcolonial heory o theextreme of calling all colonial identitieshybridslackingany ies to theprecolonial astorto authen-ticity as definedby courts that decide on NativeAmericanheritageand ineage.Instead,t calls forexploringwhomaneuvers, edirects,deploys,andsubverts olonialismand howtheydo so. That s,colonialismbecomesacontext,albeitout of neces-sity, in which indigenous people find ways tosurvive.As anexample, abor s a node of colonial nter-action laced with power,but rather han seeinglabor as only an economic or political forceimposedonindigenouspeoplebycolonialsettlers,it can be viewed simultaneouslyas a vehicle forsocial actionon the partof those performinghelabor Silliman2001b).Doingso hasbegun o clar-ify the natureof colonial experiencesfor NativeAmericans n California'sSpanishmissions, forthese nstitutionsocusedon muchmore han"spir-itualconversion"ntheirbodilydisciplineandeco-nomic activities.Missionaries egularly sed aboras a conversionool(e.g.,"idlehandsare hedevil'sworkshop") ndasa meansof sustaininghe colo-nial community,buta labor-as-practice pproachhasgivenme waysto envisionmaterial ulture nthe context of social andphysical aborrelations.In this view, it is possibleto see how indigenouspeoplerespondedo laborandmadeuse of its mate-rialityfor theirown ends and projects(Silliman2001b).Similarly,a colonial frameworkhas revealedthecomplexities f materialulturenNativeAmer-ican living areas and theirrelationshipso labordutiesat Californiaanchosollowingmissionsec-ularizationSilliman2004a).Theseranchos, spe-cially the large one forming the focus of my


15/21


research,requiredhundredsof Native people toworkonfarming, erding, ndmanufacturingasksthrough oliciesofpeonage-likendebtedness,ut-right capture,andpoliticalalliancebuildingwithneighboringribal eaders.Investigating artof aNative workerliving site on Rancho Petaluma(1834-1 850s) producednumerousartifactsper-tainingto residential ife in the context of laborduties.Materials anged romchipped-stoneools,to glassbottle ragments,o scissorsandthimbles.Ignoringabormighthave ed me to talkonlyaboutNativeAmericanculturalpatternsas thoughtheywere isolated from the colonial laborregime inwhichpeopleworked ormanyhoursa day.Cen-teringoncolonialism, ather hancontact with tsde-emphasis n laborandpower gaveme thepur-chasethatI neededto track he effects of coloniallabor in Native households and genderrelationsthrough tudiesof dietarydebris,discardedools,andobjectsof dailylife (Silliman2004a).Another entraldifficultywiththe cultural raitsnotion lies in ourconceptionsof material ultureintherealmofcolonialism.Despitegreatadvancesin interpretivearchaeologyand materialculturestudies, omearchaeologiststillpreferosee mate-rialcultureas a reflectionof culture ather hananactiveparticipantn constitutingt. This theoreti-cal issuelies atthe heartof ourmisunderstandingsof colonialism. The perspective comes acrossclearly nculture ontact tudieswhere"European"artifacts eflect"Europeanness"ather hanconsti-tute the medium orexpressingorcontesting uchan identity.As a result, the material culture ofindigenouslives duringthese times of upheavalandoppressionbecomesscattered ndambiguousby virtue of terminology. In North Americanarchaeology, lassbottles and metal tools are fre-quently ermed"historical rtifacts"egardlessofwho usedthem(i.e., Europeans rNativeAmeri-cans),but ndigenous-producedtone ools or shellornamentsarerarely, f ever,called that,even iffoundwellintodefined"historic"eriods.Theclar-ity of indigenousmaterialpracticesclouds whenlabelspredefinehese "historic"nd"Native" rti-facts as incompatiblen originandpurposeand asirreconcilablewhenmaterializing olonialperiodidentities.In truth,however, heseobjectswere the com-plex materialpackage hatconstitutedndigenousresistance to and residence in colonial worlds.

ManyNativeAmericans uiltandmaintainedden-titiesthroughnovel combinations f material ul-ture.As such,I advocate tudyingmaterial ulturenot as either"Native" r"European"ut as itemstakenup by individualso forgetheirway in newcolonial worlds (see also Loren 2001a:67; N.Thomas1991).Thedefiningelementformaterialculture ests at least as much n its use andnegoti-atedmeaningas in its origins(Silliman2005;vanDommelen 2002:123-124). We must get awayfromessentialistnotionsof what ndigenousmate-rialcultureooks ikeand nstead ocuson how ndi-vidualsmaterially ndcontextually onstructed rexpressedidentities those of traders, aborers,spouses, warriors,ritualists,seamstresses,fieldhands,men,andwomen in colonialsettingswiththe resourcesat hand.In theseways, we can stillhold onto thepromiseof previousculturecontactstudiesthatreveal the singularity ndcomplexityof Nativepersistence, urvival, ndchangebutcannow contextualize hem within the last 500 yearsof colonialism.

ConclusionNorth American archaeologists face severalpredicamentsn thestudyof indigenouspeopleinthe "contact eriod."Howdo weanalyzeheir xpe-riences in ways that simultaneouslyadmit theharshnessof colonial intrusionand capturethemeaningsof lived lives? How do we divest ourstudies of autonomous, bounded cultures andreplacethem with individualagentsnegotiatingcultural ractices nddiscoursesn multiethnicet-tings?How do we forgebetter ies witharchaeol-ogists working on the African Diaspora andenslavement?How do we come to gripswith thelegacyof colonialism hathelped o defineourdis-ciplineof NorthAmericananthropology?npart,the answerlies in revisitingourdisciplinaryer-minologyandtheimplications f ourwork or thedescendantswho bear the legacy of colonialism.As highlightedabove,both of these turnssuggestthatarchaeologistsneed to be verycareful whenusing "culture ontact"as a conceptualdevice insituations hatareclearlycolonial.Culture ontact oundsasthough ntire ulturescome into contactvia briefencounters; s thoughthe collisionhappenedbetween autonomous ul-tures hatremainedbounded;and as thoughcolo-


16/21


nial relationsof power, abor,economy,and den-titycarried ittleweight.In NorthAmerica,culturecontactarchaeology ypicallyrefers to studies ofthe Native side of European-indigenousncoun-ters. On the otherhand,colonialismemphasizesindividualstrugglingwithpower,domination,ndeconomictransformation;nderscoresong-termepisodesof violence,oppression, ndnegotiation;admits individuals forging their way into newworldsand dentities;andrecognizesno boundedcultureswhile alsorecognizing hepossibilitiesofethnogenesisand cultural urvivaland revitaliza-tion. ManyNorth Americanarchaeologistswhofocus specificallyon colonialismemphasizeonlytheEuropean spects:colonies,colonialpolicies,andcolonialgovernment. nterestingly,his s verymuchunlike ourcolleagueswho workin Mexicoandthe rest of LatinAmericanand tend to keepcolonialismntheforeground. orNorthAmerica,what we need is a sophisticatedarchaeologyofcolonialism hatcentersonindigenouspeoplesandtheirrelationswith,and n spiteof, colonizersandsettlers.I do notsuggestthatwe mustabandon notionof "contact,"ndIdo not seektoexclude romthisgenrethose archaeologistswho do not work onclearlycolonialsettingsbutwant o focustheirper-spectives round notionof culture ontact.Wecer-tainlyhave much to discuss. Similarly,I do notthink hatarchaeologistshouldagonizeforhoursover whetheror nottheyhavea culturecontactorcolonialcase.Instead,we should akequality imeto understandhe colonial andpostcolonial itera-tureandto traceout the implicationsof terminol-ogy for research ndfor descendant ommunities.The need forreconsideringerminologys partic-ularlysalientfor the archaeological tudies thatmovebeyond"first ontact" ituations o examinethe colonialworlds thatindigenouspeople navi-gated ordecades, fnotcenturies.Referringo thisresearchas the "historical rchaeologyof indige-nouspeople" seeRubertone 000)perhapsmarksa stepin therightdirection.Wemay,in fact,findthatneither olonialismnorcontact,asterms,bestcaptureshecompleteprocessof entanglementnall ofpost-Columbian orthAmerica.Regardless,the pointremains hat we need to return he his-toricalrealitiesof colonialismand contactto theplaces and times where they belong. Conflatingthemwill continue oprovedetrimentalo ourabil-

itiesto recover ealisticpictures ftheNativeAmer-icanpastand to conversewith those who find ourarchaeologicalwork nterestingrpertinento theirlives.Acknowledgments. hortervariantsof this article werepre-sented at the Fifth WorldArchaeological Congress in June2003, the 69th AnnualMeetingof the Society for AmericanArchaeology in March 2004, and the "IntersectionsandExchanges: Theory and Practice in Culture ContactResearch"mini-conference at StanfordUniversity in April2004. I thank the symposia organizersat all three for theirinvitations o participate. appreciate he helpful commentson content, direction, and sources from the journal manu-script reviewers: Rani Alexander, Tim Murray,and BobPaynter.I also thank those individuals who offered usefulcommentsor encouragementon the article in its earlierpre-sented forms: Tony Chapa, CharlesCleland, Jon Daehke,Sandy Hollimon, Kathleen Hull, Roberta Jewett, KurtJordan, Rosemary Joyce, Kent Lightfoot, Diana Loren,AndrewMartindale,Nette Martinez,AlistairPaterson,AmyRamsay,Pat Rubertone,and Barb Voss. Furthermore, amgratefulto my department olleagues,Amy Den Ouden andJudyZeitlin, for ourongoing discussionsabout culturecon-tact andcolonialism. As expected,I hold none of these indi-viduals responsiblefor what I have done with this article.JavierUrcidhelpedin preparing he finalSpanishabstract.

References CitedAlexander,RaniT.1998 Afterword: oward nArchaeologicalTheoryof Cul-ture Contact.In Studies n CultureContact: nteraction,CultureChange,and Archaeology,editedby James G.Cusick,pp. 476-495. Center orArchaeological nvesti-gations,OccasionalPaperNo. 25. Southern llinois Uni-versity,Carbondale.Arkush,Brooke S.2000 ImprovingOurUnderstanding f NativeAmericanAcculturationhroughheArchaeologicalRecord. nInter-pretationsofNativeNorthAmericanLife:MaterialCon-

tributionsoEthnohistory,ditedbyMichaelS. Nassaneyand Eric S. Johnson,pp. 188-224. UniversityPress ofFlorida,Gainesville.Armstrong,DouglasV.1998 CulturalTransformationwithin EnslavedLaborerCommunitiesntheCaribbean.nStudies nCultureCon-tact:Interaction,CultureChange, ndArchaeology,ditedby James G. Cusick,pp. 378^401. Center orArchaeo-logical Investigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 25. SouthernIllinoisUniversity,Carbondale.Axtell,James1995 ColumbianEncounters:1992-1995. WilliamandMary Quarterly 2(4):649-696.Byrne,Denis

2003 The Ethos of Return:Erasureand Reinstatement fAboriginalVisibilityin the AustralianHistoricalLand-scape.HistoricalArchaeology37(1):73-86.Carlson,CatherineC.2000 Archaeologyof a Contact-PeriodPlateauSalishanVillage at Thompson'sRiver Post, Kamloops, BritishColumbia.In Interpretationsf Native North American


17/21

70 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 70, No. 1 2005Life:Material Contributions o Ethnohistory, ditedbyMichael S. NassaneyandEric S. Johnson,pp. 272-295.UniversityPressof Florida,Gainesville.Cassell,MarkS.2003 FlintandFoxes: ChertScrapers ndthe FurIndustryin Late-Nineteenth- ndEarly-Twentieth-CenturyorthAlaska. nStoneToolTraditionsntheContactEra,editedbyCharlesR. Cobb,pp. 151-164. Universityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.Churchill,Ward1998 The Crucibleof American ndianIdentity.Z Maga-zine,January: 7-51.Clarke,Anne2000 Time,Tradition,ndTransformation:heNegotiationof Cross-Culturalngagement nGrooteEylandt,North-ernAustralia.TheArchaeology f Difference:NegotiatingCross-CulturalngagementsnOceania,editedbyRobinTorrence and Anne Clark, pp. 142-177. Routledge,London.Cleland,CharlesE.1992 Ritesof Conquest:TheHistoryand Culture fMichi-gan's NativeAmericans.Universityof MichiganPress,AnnArbor.1993 Economic andAdaptive Change among the LakeSuperiorChippewaof the NineteenthCentury. nEthno-history and Archaeology: Approaches to PostcontactChange n theAmericas,editedby J. DanielRogersandSamuelM.Wilson,pp.111-122. PlenumPress,NewYork.Cobb,CharlesR.2003a Introduction: ramingStoneTool TraditionsafterContact. nStoneToolTraditionsn theContactEra,editedby Charles R. Cobb, pp. 1-12. Universityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.Cobb,CharlesR. (editor)2003b StoneToolTraditionsn the ContactEra.Universityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.Cusick,JamesG.1998a Historiographyf Acculturation: n EvaluationofConceptsandTheirApplicationnArchaeology. nStud-ies in CultureContact: nteraction,CultureChange,andArchaeology,editedby James G. Cusick,pp. 126-145.Center orArchaeologicalnvestigations, ccasionalPaperNo. 25. Southern llinoisUniversity,Carbondale.1998b Introduction. n Studies n CultureContact: nter-action,CultureChange, ndArchaeology, ditedbyJamesG. Cusick,pp. 1-20. Center orArchaeological nvesti-gations,OccasionalPaperNo. 25. Southern llinoisUni-versity,Carbondale.2000 Creolization nd heBorderlands.HistoricalArchae-ology34(3):46-55.Cusick,JamesG. (editor)1998c Studies in Culture Contact:Interaction,CultureChange, and Archaeology. Centerfor ArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 25. SouthernllinoisUniversity,Carbondale.Deagan,Kathleen1983 SpanishSt.Augustine:TheArchaeologyof a Colo-nial CreoleCommunity. cademicPress,New York.1996 Colonial Transformation: uro-AmericanCulturalGenesis n theEarlySpanish-AmericanColonies.JournalofAnthropologicalResearch52(2):135-160.1998 TransculturationndSpanishAmericanEthnogene-sis: TheArchaeologicalLegacyof theQuincentenary.nStudies n CultureContact: nteraction,CultureChange,andArchaeology, ditedby JamesG. Cusick,pp.23-43.Center orArchaeologicalnvestigations, ccasionalPaperNo. 25. Southern llinoisUniversity,Carbondale.

Den Ouden,AmyE.2005 Against Conquest:NativePeoplesand the Strugglefor ReservationLand nEighteenth-Centuryonnecticut.Universityof NebraskaPress,Lincoln, n press.Dirks,Nicholas B.1992 Introduction: olonialismand Culture. n Colonial-ismand Culture, ditedby NicholasB. Dirks,pp. 1-25.Universityof MichiganPress,Ann Arbor.Dominguez,Adolfo J.2002 Greeks n Iberia:ColonialismwithoutColonization.In TheArchaeology fColonialism,ditedbyClaireLyonsand JohnK. Papadopoulos,pp. 65-95. GettyResearchInstitute,LosAngeles.Epperson,TerrenceW1990 Raceand heDisciplinesof the Plantation.HistoricalArchaeology24(4):29-36.Farnsworth, aul1989 The Economicsof Acculturationn theSpanishMis-

sions ofAltaCalifornia.nResearchn EconomicAnthro-pology,Vol. 11, editedby BarryIsaac,pp. 217-249. JAIPress, Greenwich,Connecticut.Ferguson,Leland1992 UncommonGround:Archaeology ndEarlyAfricanAmerica, 650-1800. Smithsoniannstitutionress,Wash-ington,D.C.Fitzhugh,WilliamW (editor)1985 Culturesn Contact:TheEuropean mpacton NativeCulturalInstitutions in Eastern NorthAmerica,A.D.1000-1800. Smithsonian nstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.Fontana,BernardL.1965 OntheMeaningof HistoricSitesArchaeology.Amer-icanAntiquity 1(1):61-65.Foster,GeorgeM.1960 Culture nd Conquest:America sSpanishHeritage.VikingFund Publicationsn Anthropology27. Wenner-GrenFoundation,NewYork.Franklin,Maria2001 A BlackFeminist-Inspired rchaeology? ournalofSocialArchaeology1(1):108-125.Gosden,Chris1999 Anthropology ndArchaeology:A ChangingRela-tionship.Routledge,London.2004 Archaeology nd Colonialism:CulturalContactrom5000 BC to the Present. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.

Hall,Martin1993 TheArchaeologyof ColonialSettlementn SouthernAfrica.AnnualReviewof Anthropology 2:177-200.1999 Archaeologyand theModernWorld:ColonialTran-scriptsin SouthAfricaand the Chesapeake.Routledge,London.Harrison,Rodney2002 Archaeologyand he ColonialEncounter:KimberleySpearPoints,Culturaldentity ndMasculinityn theNorthof Australia. ournalofSocialArchaeology (3):352-377.2004 SharedHistoriesand heArchaeologyof the PastoralIndustryn Australia. nAfterCaptainCook:TheArchae-ology of the RecentIndigenousPast inAustralia,editedby RodneyHarrison ndChristineWilliamson, p.37-58.AltaMiraPress,WalnutCreek,California.Harrison,Rodney,and ChristineWilliamson editors)2004 After CaptainCook:TheArchaeologyof the RecentIndigenousPast in Australia. AltaMiraPress, WalnutCreek,California.Hassig,Ross1994 Mexicoand theSpanishConquest. ongman,London.


18/21

Silliman] CHALLENGES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF NATIVENORTHAMERICA 71Herskovits,Melville J.1927 Acculturation nd the AmericanNegro.Southwest-ernPoliticalandSocial ScienceQuarterly :211-225.1958[1938] Acculturation:TheStudyof CultureContact.

Reprint.PeterSmith,Gloucester,Massachusetts.Hill,JonathonD.1998 ViolentEncounters:Ethnogenesisand Ethnocide nLong-TermContactSituations. nStudies nCultureCon-tact:Interaction,CultureChange, ndArchaeology,ditedby James G. Cusick,pp. 146-171. Center orArchaeo-logical Investigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 25. SouthernIllinoisUniversity,Carbondale.Howson,JeanE.1990 Social RelationsandMaterialCulture:A Critique ftheArchaeology f Plantation lavery.HistoricalArchae-ology24(4):79-91.Johnson,JayK.1997 Stone Tools, Politics, and the Eighteenth-CenturyChickasawn NortheastMississippl.AmericanAntiquity62:215-230.Kuhn,ThomasS.1979 MetaphornScience.InMetaphor ndThought, nded., editedby AndrewOrtony,pp. 409-419. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.Langer,ErickD., and RobertH.Jackson1988 Colonialand RepublicanMissionsCompared:TheCasesof Alta California nd Southeastern olivia. Com-parativeStudies nSocietyandHistory30:286-311Lightfoot,KentG.1995 CultureContactStudies:RedefiningheRelationshipbetween Prehistoric nd HistoricalArchaeology.Ameri-canAntiquity 0: 199-217.

Lightfoot,KentG., andAntoinetteMartinez1995 Frontiers ndBoundariesnArchaeologicalPerspec-tive.AnnualReviewof Anthropology4:471^-92.Lightfoot,KentG.,AntoinetteMartinez, ndAnn M. Schiff1998 Daily Practice and MaterialCulturein PluralisticSocial Settings: An Archaeological Study of CultureChangeandPersistence romFortRoss,California.Amer-icanAntiquity 3:199-222.Lightfoot,KentG., andWilliamS. Simmons1998 CultureContact n ProtohistoricCalifornia:SocialContextsof NativeandEuropeanEncounters. ournalofCalifornia nd GreatBasinAnthropology0(2):138-170.Lilley,Ian(editor)2000 NativeTitleand the Transformationf Archaeologyin a PostcolonialWorld.OceaniaMonographs 0. OceanPublications,University f Sydney,Sydney.Loren,DianaDiPaolo2000 The Intersectionsof ColonialPolicy and ColonialPractice: Creolization on the 18th-CenturyLouisiana/Texas Frontier. Historical Archaeology34(3):85-98.2001a Manipulating odies andEmergingTraditions ttheLosAdaesPresidio. n TheArchaeology fTraditions: heSoutheastBeforeandAfterColumbus,ditedby TimothyR. Pauketat,pp. 58-76. University of Florida Press,Gainesville.2001b Social Skins: OrthodoxiesandPracticesof Dress-ingin theEarlyColonialLowerMississippiValley.Jour-nalof SocialArchaeology1 2):172-189.2003 Refashioninga Body Politic in ColonialLouisiana.CambridgeArchaeological ournal13(2):231 237.Lyons,Claire,andJohn K. Papadopouloseditors)2002 TheArchaeology fColonialism.GettyResearch nsti-tute,LosAngeles.Murray, im

1996 ContactArchaeology: haredHistories? hared den-tities? In SITES:Nailing the Debate:ArchaeologyandInterpretationn Museums,editedby S. Hunt andJaneLydon,pp.201-213. Museumof Sydney,Sydney.2004a TheArchaeologyof Contact n SettlerSocieties. InTheArchaeology f Contact n SettlerSocieties,editedbyTim Murray, pp. 1-16. CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge.2004b Epilogue: An Archaeology of Indigenous/Non-IndigenousAustralia rom 1788. InAfterCaptainCook:TheArchaeologyof the RecentIndigenousPast in Aus-tralia, edited by Rodney Harrison and ChristineWilliamson,pp.213-223. AltaMiraPress,WalnutCreek,California.2004c In the Footstepsof GeorgeDutton:DevelopingaContactArchaeologyof TemperateAboriginalAustralia.InTheArchaeology f Contact nSettlerSocieties,editedbyTimMurray, p.200-225. CambridgeUniversity ress,Cambridge.Nassaney,MichaelS.1989 AnEpistemologicalEnquirynto SomeArchaeolog-ical andHistorical nterpretationsf 17thCenturyNativeAmerican-European Relations. In ArchaeologicalApproacheso Culturaldentity,ditedby Stephen . Shen-nan,pp.76-93. UnwinHyman,London.Nassaney,MichaelS., and EricS. Johnson2000 The Contributions f MaterialObjectsto Ethnohis-tory nNativeNorthAmerica. nInterpretationsfNativeNorthAmericanLife:MaterialContributions o Ethno-history,editedby MichaelS. Nassaneyand EricS. John-son,pp. 1-30. UniversityPressof Florida,Gainesville.Nassaney,MichaelS., and MichaelVolmar2003 LithicArtifacts n Seventeenth-Centuryative NewEngland.In Stone Tool Traditions n the ContactEra,edited by Charles R. Cobb, pp. 78-93. UniversityofAlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.Obeyesekere,Gananath1992 TheApotheosis of CaptainCook:EuropeanMyth-making in the Pacific. Princeton University Press,Princeton.Orser,CharlesE., Jr.1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World.PlenumPublishers,New York.2003 Race and Practice inArchaeological nterpretation.Universityof PennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia.Orser,CharlesE., Jr. editor)2000 Race,MaterialCulture, nd theArchaeology fIden-tity.Universityof UtahPress,Salt LakeCity.Paynter,Robert2000a HistoricalandAnthropologicalArchaeology:Forg-ingAlliances. ournal fArchaeologicalResearch (1 :137.2000b HistoricalArchaeologyand the Post-ColumbianWorld in North America. Journal of ArchaeologicalResearch8(3):169-217.Perry,WarrenR.1999 LandscapeTransformationnd theArchaeologyofImpact:SocialDisruptionandState Formation n South-ern Africa. Kluwer Academic/PlenumPublishers,NewYork.

Ramenofsky,Ann M.1987 Vectors fDeath:TheArchaeology fEuropeanCon-tact.Universityof New MexicoPress,Albuquerque.Redfield,Robert,RalphLinton,and Melville J. Herskovits1936 Memorandumor theStudyof Acculturation. mer-icanAnthropologist8:149-152.Rogers,Daniel


19/21

72 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 70, No. 1 20051990 Objectsof Change:TheArchaeology ndHistoryofAnkara ContactwithEuropeans.Smithsonian nstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.Rogers,Daniel,andSamuelM. Wilson(editors)1993 EthnohistoryndArchaeology:Approacheso Post-contactChangen theAmericas.PlenumPress,New York.Rubertone,Patricia1989 Archaeology,Colonialism,and17th-Century ativeAmerica:Towardsan Alternative nterpretation.n Con-flict in theArchaeologyof LivingTraditions, ditedbyRobertLay on,pp.32-45. UnwinHyman,London.2000 The HistoricalArchaeologyof Native Americans.AnnualReviewof Anthropology 9:425^446.2001 Grave Undertakings:An Archaeology of RogerWilliams nd theNarragansettndians.Smithsoniannsti-tutionPress,Washington,D.C.Sahlins,Marshall1981 HistoricalMetaphors ndMythicalRealities:Struc-

ture in theEarlyHistoryof the Sandwich slandsKing-dom.Universityof MichiganPress,AnnArbor.1985 Islands of History. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.Saunders,Rebecca1998 ForcedRelocation,PowerRelations, ndCultureCon-tact in the Missions of La Florida.In Studies n CultureContact: nteraction,CultureChange,andArchaeology,edited by James G. Cusick, pp. 402-429. Center forArchaeological nvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 25.Southern llinoisUniversity,Carbondale.Scarry, ohnF.2001 Resistance and Accommodation in ApalacheeProvince.nTheArchaeology fTraditions,ditedbyTim-othyR. Pauketat, p. 34-57. UniversityPressof Florida,Gainesville.

Scarry, ohnF, andMintcyD. Maxham2002 Elite Actors n the Protohistoric: lite IdentitiesandInteraction ithEuropeansntheApalachee ndPowhatanChiefdoms.InBetween Contactsand Colonies:Archae-ologicalPerspectivesn theProtohistoricoutheast,ditedby CameronB. Wessonand MarkA. Rees,pp. 142-169.Universityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.Scarry, ohnF, and Bonnie G. McEwan1995 Domestic Architecture in Apalachee Province:ApalacheeandSpanishResidentialStyles ntheLatePre-historicandEarlyHistoric Period Southeast.AmericanAntiquity 0:482^95.

Schortman,Edward,andPatriciaUrban1998 CultureContactStructure ndProcess.InStudies nCultureContact:nteraction,CultureChange, ndArchae-ology,editedbyJamesG.Cusick,pp.102-125. Center orArchaeological nvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 25.Southern llinoisUniversity,Carbondale.Schrire,Carmel1995 Digging throughDarkness:Chronicles fan Archae-ologist.UniversityPress of Virginia,Charlottesville.Silliman,StephenW.2001a Agency,PracticalPolitics,andtheArchaeologyofCulture Contact. Journal of Social Archaeology1(2):184-204.2001b TheoreticalPerspectives nLaborandColonialism:ReconsideringheCaliforniaMissions.JournalofAnthro-pological Archaeology20:379-407.2003 Usinga Rock n a HardPlace:NativeAmericanLithicPracticesn ColonialCalifornia. nStone ToolTraditionsin theContactEra,editedbyCharlesCobb,pp. 127-150.Universityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.2004a LostLaborers n ColonialCalifornia:NativeAmer-

icans and theArchaeologyofRanchoPetaluma.Univer-sityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.2004b SocialandPhysicalLandscapes f Contact. nNorthAmericanArchaeology, ditedby TimothyPauketat ndDiana DiPaoloLoren.BlackwellPublishing,London, npress.2005 IndigenousTraces n ColonialSpaces:An Archaeol-ogy of Ambiguity.UnpublishedMS.Simmons,WilliamS.1988 CultureTheory n Contemporary thnohistory. th-nohistory35(1):1-14.Singleton,TheresaA.1995 Archaeologyof Slaveryin NorthAmerica.AnnualReviewofAnthropology4:119-140.1998 CulturalnteractionndAfricanAmericandentitynPlantationArchaeology.In Studiesin CultureContact:Interaction,CultureChange,andArchaeology, ditedbyJamesG.Cusick,pp. 172-1 88.Center orArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 25. SouthernllinoisUniversity,Carbondale.2001 SlaveryandSpatialDialecticson CubanCoffeePlan-tations.WorldArchaeology33(1):98-114.Singleton,TheresaA. (editor)1999 "/, Too,Am America":ArchaeologicalStudiesofAfrican-AmericanLife. University Press of Virginia,Charlottesville.

Spicer,EdwardS.1962 Cyclesof Conquest:The mpact f Spain,Mexico,andthe United States on the Indians of the Southwest,1533-1960. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.Stein,Gil2002 Colonies without Colonialism:A TradeDiasporaModelofFourthMillennium .C.MesopotamiannclavesinAnatolia. n TheArchaeology f Colonialism, ditedbyClaireLyonsandJohnK.Papadopoulos,p.27-64. GettyResearch nstitute,LosAngeles.Stoler,Ann Laura1989 RethinkingColonialCategories:EuropeanCommu-nitiesand he Boundaries f Rule.Comparativetudies nSocietyandHistory31(3):134-1 61.Taylor,WilliamB.1994 Santiago'sHorse:Christianity nd ColonialIndianResistance n the Heartland f New Spain.In Violence,Resistance,and Survival n theAmericas:NativeAmeri-cans and theLegacyof Conquest, ditedby WilliamB.TaylorandFranklinPease G.Y.,pp. 153-189. Smithson-ian InstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.Taylor,WilliamB., andFranklinPease G.Y. (editors)1994 Violence,Resistance,and Survival n theAmericas:Native Americansand the Legacy of Conquest.Smith-sonianInstitution ress,Washington,D.C.Thomas,David Hurst2000 SkullWars:KennewickMan,Archaeology,and theBattle or NativeAmericanIdentity.Basic Books, NewYork.Thomas,David Hurst editor)1989 ColumbianConsequences,Vol.1 ArchaeologicalndHistoricalPerspectives n theSpanishBorderlandsWest.SmithsoniannstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.1990 ColumbianConsequences,Vol. :ArchaeologicalndHistoricalPerspectives n theSpanishBorderlandsEast.Smithsonian nstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.1991 ColumbianConsequences,Vol.3: TheSpanishBor-derlands n Pan-Americanerspective. mithsoniannsti-tutionPress,Washington,D.C.Thomas,Nicholas1991 EntangledObjects:Exchange,MaterialCulture, nd


20/21

Silliman] CHALLENGES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF NATIVENORTH AMERICA 73Colonialismin the Pacific. HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge.1994 Colonialism'sCulture:Anthropology,Travel,andGovernment. rincetonUniversityPress,Princeton.vanDommelen,Peter2002 AmbiguousMatters:Colonialismand Local Identi-tiesinPunicSardinia.n TheArchaeology f Colonialism,editedby ClaireLyonsand JohnK. Papadopoulos,pp.121-147. GettyResearch nstitute,LosAngeles.Voss,BarbaraL.2002 TheArchaeology f El Presidio e SanFrancisco:Cul-tureContact,Gender, ndEthnicitynaSpanish-ColonialMilitaryCommunity. npublished h.D.dissertation, ni-versityof California,Berkeley.Wagner,MarkJ.1998 SomeThink tImpossibleo CivilizeThemAll:Cul-turalChangeandContinuity mong heEarlyNineteenth-CenturyPotawatomi.In Studies in Culture Contact:Interaction,CultureChange,andArchaeology, ditedbyJamesG.Cusick,pp.430-456. Center orArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 25. SouthernllinoisUniversity,Carbondale.2003 In All theSolemnityot ProfoundSmoking:TobaccoSmoking and Pipe Manufactureand Use among thePotawatomif Illinois. nStoneToolTraditionsn theCon-tactEra,editedby CharlesR. Cobb,pp. 109-126. Uni-versityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.Walthall, ohnA. (editor)1991 FrenchColonialArchaeology:The Illinois Countryand theWesternGreatLakes.University f IllinoisPress,Urbana.Walthall, ohnA., andThomasE. Emerson editors)1992 Calumetand Fleur-de-Lys:Archaeologyof Indianand French Contactin the Midcontinent.SmithsonianInstitution ress,Washington,D.C.Waselkov,GregoryA.1993 HistoricCreekIndianResponses o EuropeanTradeand the Rise of PoliticalFactions.In Ethnohistory ndArchaeology:Approaches o PostcontactChangein theAmericas, ditedbyJ. DanielRogersandSamuelM.Wil-son,pp. 123-131. PlenumPress,NewYork.Wesson,CameronB.2002 PrestigeGoods,SymbolicCapital,andSocialPowerin theProtohistoric outheast. n Between ContactsandColonies:Archaeological erspectivesn theProtohistoricSoutheast,editedby CameronB. Wessonand MarkA.Rees, pp. 110-125. University of Alabama Press,Tuscaloosa.Whelan,MaryK.1993 DakotaIndianEconomicsandthe Nineteenth-Cen-turyFurTrade.Ethnohistory0(2):246-276.Williamson,Christine2004 ContactArchaeologyand theWritingof AboriginalHistory.n TheArchaeology fContactnSettlerSocieties,editedby TimMurray, p. 176-199. CambridgeUniver-sityPress,Cambridge.Williamson,Christine, ndRodneyHarrison2004 Introduction: "Too Many Captain Cooks"? AnArchaeologyof AboriginalAustraliaafter1788. InAfterCaptainCook:TheArchaeology f theRecent ndigenousPast inAustralia,editedby RodneyHarrison ndChris-tineWilliamson,pp. 1-16. AltaMiraPress,WalnutCreek,California.Wilson,SamuelM.1999 TheEmperorsGiraffe nd OtherStoriesof Culturesin Contact.WestviewPress,Boulder.Wolf,EricR.

1982 Europeand thePeoplewithoutHistory.University fCaliforniaPress,Berkeley.Wood,PeterH.1994 North Americain the Era of CaptainCook: ThreeGlimpsesof Indian-EuropeanContact n theAge of theAmerican Revolution. In Implicit Understandings:Observing,Reporting,andReflectingon theEncountersbetweenEuropeans ndOtherPeoples n theEarlyMod-ernEra,editedby StuartB. Schwartz, p.484-501 . Cam-bridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.Wylie,Alison1992 Rethinkingthe Quincentennial:ConsequencesforPast and Present.AmericanAntiquity 7:591-594.

Notes1 A recentredefinition f colonialism offeredby Gosden

attempts o understand hatalthoughcolonialism n the mod-ern world is different hananythingpreceding t, theprocessshareswith earlierversions n Rome or Uruk the centralroleof materialculture:"Colonialism s not many things,but ustone. Colonialism s a process by whichthings shape people,rather than the reverse" (2004:153). I suspect that thisapproachwill proveuseful for comparative tudies of colo-nialism,but I do not opt for this broaddefinition n this arti-cle. Much of whatI discuss as North Americancolonialismconcerns what Gosden calls terra nullius and "middleground" olonialisms.Terranullius has as its characteristicsthe "mass death of indigenousinhabitants;echnologiesoftransport,communication, production and militarism ofunusualsophistication; he drive supplied by the capitalistworld system to seek new raw materials and markets,andwhich provideda supra-national et of values; ideologiessuch as terranullius whichprovided heideologicaland egalbasis fortakingover and,plushardening ategoriesof racismcreatinga hierarchyof humanbeings andallottingdifferentforms of labour and reward suitable to each, the Christianchurchandideology which offered other sets of globalorga-nization and the necessity to save the pagans" (Gosden2004:27).Middlegroundcolonialism was "createdhrougha mutu-allybeneficialexploration f differences n the form of socia-bility on al

cultcontactorcolonialismamantv70_000

Documents