This Content Downloaded From 14.139.240.11 On Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC

Culture Contact or Colonialism?
Challenges in the Archaeology of Native North

America
Author(s): Stephen W. Silliman
Source: American Antiquity , Jan., 2005, Vol. 70, No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp. 55-74
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40035268
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40035268?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content 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 support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to American Antiquity
This content downloaded from

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CULTURE CONTACT OR COLONIALISM? CHALLENGES IN THE
ARCHAEOLOGY OF NATIVE NORTH AMERICA
Stephen W. Silliman
What has frequently been termed "contact-period" archaeology has assumed a prominent role in North
ology in the last two decades. This article examines the conceptual foundation of archaeological "cul
by sharpening the terminological and interpretive distinction between "contact" and "colonialism." The
two terms, and thereby realms of historical experience, has proven detrimental to archaeologists' attem
indigenous and colonial histories. In light of this predicament, the article tackles three problems with
as culture contact: (1) emphasizing short-term encounters rather than long-term entanglements, which
and heterogeneous forms of colonialism and the multifaceted ways that indigenous people experien
playing the severity of interaction and the radically different levels of political power, which does little
people negotiated complex social terrain but does much to distance "contact" studies from what should
focus in the archaeology of African enslavement and diaspora; and (3) privileging predefined cultural tr
or creolized cultural products, which loses sight of the ways that social agents lived their daily lives an
ture can reveal, as much as hide, the subtleties of cultural change and continuity.
Lo que frecuentemente se denomina arqueologia del "periodo de contacto " ha adquirido en los ultim
prominente en la arqueologia norteamericana. Este trabajo examina el legado conceptual de los estudios a
el contacto cultural y aclara la importante distincion terminologica e interpretativa entre "contacto"
tendencia a confundir ambos conceptos, ypor lo tanto el mundo de las experiencias historicas, ha perjudic
ologico por comprender tanto la historia indigena como la colonial. Bajo semejante predicamento, este ar
problemas que se generan al equiparar colonialismo con contacto cultural: (1) poner enfasis en los e
duration - en vez de las relaciones prolongadas - lo que ignora lasformas y los procesos heterogeneos
como las multiples dimensiones de las experiencias indigenas, (2) poner menor atencion a la intensidad d
los grados de poder politico tan diferentes, lo que no permite apreciar como la gente autoctona negocio
complejos, promoviendo ademds un distanciamiento entre los estudios de "contacto" y las investigaci
arqueologia de la esclavitud y didsporas africanas; y (3) privilegiar rasgos culturales predefinidos sob
novedosas o criollas, lo que impide apreciar lasformas en las que agentes sociales vivieron sus quehace
dando a la vez que la cultura material puede revelar, asi como ocultar, las sutilezas del cambio cultural y
of culture contact and colonialism

and indigenous cultural survival but also il
have assumed a recognizable place in con-
nating the global trajectories of European-de
temporary archaeology. Whether imperial
in Northexpansion, colonialism, and decolo
America, Latin America, South Africa,
tion.western
Some have broadened this project by co
ering culture
Africa, Australia, or Hawai'i, archaeologists havecontact and colonialism in
precapitalist
made enormous strides in documenting the com- and "precontact" contexts in Latin
America,people
plexities of interaction between indigenous Mesopotamia, and elsewhere (Alexander
1998;and
and the expanding European mercantilist Cusick
cap-1998c; Dominguez 2002; Gosden
2004; Lyons
italist world economy and political sphere and Papadopoulos 2002; Schortman
of the
and Urban
last half-millennium. The implications 1998; Stein 2002), a worthwhile effort
of this
research are broad and profound, not that
only affect-
may ultimately help break down the artificial
disciplinary
ing the understanding of local histories, barrier between historical and prehis-
identities,
Stephen W. Silliman ■ Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Boston, 100 Morrissey Boulevard,
Boston, MA 02125-3393 (stephen.silliman@umb.edu)
American Antiquity, 70(1), 2005, pp. 55-74

Copyright© 2005 by the Society for American Archaeology
55

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
56 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 70, No. 1 , 2005
nial throws
toric archaeology that into relief is the need
currently for archaeologistsdiscu
hinders
about historical processes and
to take responsibility for thecultural
work their research hist
(Lightfoot 1995; Williamson 2004).
does in a world that is structured by classist, racist,
and sexist
Although a research politics" (Wylie 1992:593).
interest truly I takeas this old
American anthropology, a focus
charge seriously on
and suggest that Native
the way we talk A
about and present
icans in North America's our research oncontact
so-called "contact" in pe
did not assume a position of
North American archaeological
archaeology is problematic for the pro
nence until the 1980s. This
way it "does is the
work" within despite the w
discipline and out-
side of it.
ranging acculturation research in anthropo
during the 1930s, suchTheas
article argues that
that an uncritical use of cul-
summarized by
turedid
skovits (1958), which contact terminology
not engage for clearly colonial con-
consiste
with the material record of Native histories avail-
texts does the following: (1) emphasizes short-term
encounters over long-term entanglements; (2)
able through archaeology. As practitioners of North
American archaeology recognize, a central impe- downplays the severity of interaction between
tus for the expanded research program was pri- groups and the radically different levels of politi-
marily the approach of the 1992 Columbian cal power that structured those relationships; and
(3) privileges predefined and almost essentialized
quincentennial, the 500-year anniversary of Colum-
bus's fateful 1492 landfall in the Caribbean that ush-cultural traits over creative, creolized, or novel cul-
ered in European colonialism and expansion in the
tural products. I am not the first to have concerns
Americas. Another influence involved the 1990 about the terminology of culture contact (Hill 1998;
Murray 1996:202, 2004b:215; Paynter 2000a:9,
passage of the Native American Graves Protection
200Jb:202) or about the problems of uncritically
and Repatriation Act by the U.S. Congress because
linking culture contact to the acculturation models
this legislation prompted more collaborative work
between archaeologists and tribal members. of
In the first half of the twentieth century (Cusick
1998a), but I hope to deepen the discussions here.
anticipation of the quincentennial and in recogni-
tion of the lacunae in archaeological research deal-
At a theoretical level, this article attempts to rethink
ing with the period, a number of influential
the metaphor (sensu Kuhn 1979) of "contact" in
publications appeared that grappled with issuesNorth
of American archaeology in the hopes that
European colonialism and Native American
changing the metaphor will recast the process -
responses (Fitzhugh 1985; Ramenofsky 1987;
colonialism - that it purports to represent. I agree
with Williamson's concern that "the current con-
Rogers 1990; Rogers and Wilson 1993; Taylor and
Pease 1994; Thomas 1989, 1990, 1991; Walthall ceptual instruments that we are using to investigate
and Emerson 1992; Wylie 1992; see also Axtell contact are actually making the job of understand-
1995). Since then, the subfield has expanded expo- ing more difficult" (2004: 191), but to complement
nentially across North America and elsewhere, and her proposal for treating precontact/postcontact his-
recently archaeologists have begun to take stock of tories as a continuum (after Lightfoot 1 995), I seek
the field (Cusick 1998b; Deagan 1998; Lightfoot to revisit the "contact" term itself. The metaphor
1995; Murray 1996, 2004a, 2004b; Rubertone of "contact" structures not only our concepts and
2000; Silliman 2004b). interpretations of the interactions of Native Amer-
My goal in this article is to offer a different per- icans and settlers but also the mental image formed
spective on culture contact and colonial archaeol- by our audiences and collaborators when we nar-
ogy, especially as practiced in North America: I rate those histories.
seek to interrogate the terms and parameters that
define it. In particular, I want to examine the theo-
Drawing Distinctions
retical, historical, and political implications of the
terms culture contact and colonialism as they per- Culture contact or colonialism? The point about
tain to the archaeological study of indigenous peo- terminology may seem pedantic, but conflating
ple in post-Columbian North America. I argue that colonialism with contact underwrites misunder-
we have not paid enough theoretical attention to standings of indigenous people in North Ameri-
the basis of our inquiries: "What the quincenten- can archaeology. An anecdote will illustrate. A

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
Silliman] CHALLENGES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF NATIVE NORTH AMERICA 57
reviewer once questioned me on a manuscript

England part of con-
the "contact period" when the East-
cerning Native Americans living and working
ern Pequot on
Tribal Nation community had been on
a colonial reservation
a nighteenth-century rancho in California - Why since 1683 after enduring
did I call this context culture contact when it was
severe casualties and dislocation following the
clearly colonialism? The rancho and adobe sitePequot War of 1636-37? Simply put, I cannot, nor
had been occupied in the 1830s and 1840s by acan my tribal collaborators.
handful of Mexican Californians and around a "Culture contact" remains a problematic phrase
thousand California Indian people laboring forindescribing
a all indigenous-colonial interactions
variety of economic roles (Silliman 2004a). in North America and elsewhere, and we need to
Some
conducted this labor voluntarily; others worked
reconsider our conceptual baggage. A recent review
under coercion and force. The reviewer implied
of the relationship between historical archaeology
and anthropological archaeology expressed con-
that I downgraded both the severity of interaction
and the extent of possible change that had already
cern that "historical archaeology has yet to find a
occurred in Native American groups implicated in
replacement for the bland 'Contact period'" (Payn-
terter-
this particular colonial setting just by using the 2000a:9). Yet the research itself is not bland; it
minology. That is, could Rancho Petaluma, the
is instead frequently mislabeled, sometimes under-
research site, really be considered "contact" theorized,
if the and as a result, remarkably disempow-
ered. Indigenous people, particularly in North
rancho involved willing and forced Native Amer-
ican laborers, some of whom had been in or near find the last five centuries of attack on
America,
Spanish and then Mexican missions for moretheir
thancultural traditions, heritage, and lives more
politically charged than simple "contact" might
30 years? At the time I brushed off the criticism
as a matter of semantics because I really meant
convey. In addition, we conduct our archaeology
colonialism when I said culture contact. In fact, I
in a discipline that traces its heritage in colonial-
continued to use the term in my publications (Sil-
ism, not in contact, but we have yet to fully come
liman 2001a, 2003) despite some consternation to grips with that legacy (Gosden 1999; Thomas
(Silliman 2004b), and numerous archaeologists 2000). As a result, we face a large problem in the
have also used contact even while otherwise care- ways that we present our studies of indigenous-
fully arguing and elucidating complex colonialEuropean encounters solely as "contact" episodes
processes (Carlson 2000; Cobb 2003a; Deagan to archaeology's various audiences and collabora-
1998; Johnson 1997; Lightfoot 1995; Lightfoot et tors, whether indigenous descendant communities,
al. 1998; Loren 2001b; Nassaney and Volmar 2003; the general public, or students.
Wagner 2003). At issue are the explicit and implicit features that
However, after a few years of reflection, it differentiate contact from colonialism. Therefore,
became clear that this involved more than a seman- I begin by clarifying my use of these terms and their
applicability to different regional traditions in
tic problem. Referring to my northern California
research as contact did seem to downplay, at leastarchaeology. The article focuses on Native Amer-
ican interactions with Europeans and European
terminologically, the violence of the colonial fron-
descendants because archaeologists who research
tier; the labor regime forced on indigenous people
by settler populations; the presence of nonindige-Native Americans in the times following European
nous groups in the general region for more than
settlement tend to refer to their period and topic of
interest as contact rather than colonial. Perhaps
three decades; and the ensuing material, cultural,
and political entanglement. I began to reflect on
telling is the likely noncoincidental lack of North
American representation in a recent volume enti-
how students, public visitors to the excavation, and
my Native American consultants must have thoughttled The Archaeology of Colonialism (Lyons and
Papadopoulus 2002), in which the idea of "culture
about my efforts to call this context "culture con-
tact." The same goes for my current archaeologi-
contact" seems nowhere to be found. Although this
cal research on Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation historyarticle centers on North America, archaeological
in southeastern Connecticut. How could I consider work pertaining to Aboriginal Australia should
my archaeological work on the seventeenth, eigh-offer pertinent parallel cases, even though archae-
teenth, and nighteenth centuries of southern Newologists working there seem more attuned already

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
to the colonial nature of these historical contacts fully prepared to grapple with the specific contact
cases of colonialism and need not wait while we
(Harrison 2002; Harrison and Williamson 2004;
"develop theory and methods appropriate to the
Murray 2004a, 2004b). Moreover, I do not expect
that my points about culture contact necessarily study of culture contact in all time periods" (Schort-
will have the same resonance with Latin American man and Urban 1998: 104). Colonialism needs con-
sideration in its historicity (Dirks 1992; Thomas
archaeologists, for they do not regularly confuse
colonialism by calling it contact. The problem1994). Similarly, we must be wary of the negative
seems to lie in the study of regions north ofconsequences of terminological slippage for our
Mesoamerica's urban cities and hinterlands. audiences. If colonial intrusions into the Americas,
Africa, and Australia involve only "predispositions
for groups to interact with 'outsiders,'" the defini-
Terminology
tion neutralizes colonialism and simplifies indige-
nous experiences of it, likely accounting for why
Contact, or culture contact, stands as a general term
the term is no longer in vogue in cultural
used by archaeologists to refer to groups of people
anthropology.
coming into or staying in contact for days, years,
decades, centuries, or even millennia. In its broad-Colonialism is generally defined as the process
est usage, this contact can range from amicableby
towhich a city- or nation- state exerts control over
people - termed indigenous - and territories out-
hostile, extensive to minor, long term to short dura-
side of its geographical boundaries.1 This exertion
tion, or ancient to recent, and it may include a vari-
ety of elements such as exchange, integration,
of sovereignty is frequently but not always accom-
slavery, colonialism, imperialism, and diaspora. plished
Its through colonization, which involves the
establishment of colonies that administer state con-
potential value lies in offering a comparative frame-
trol, manage interactions, and extract labor, raw
work for the study of intercultural interactions,
materials,
encounters, and exchanges, a point illustrated by a and surplus (Alexander 1998). Colo-
volume that integrates various time periods, study
nization usually takes place in the context of impe-
areas, and points of view (Cusick 1998c). Cusick
rialism, whether, for example, expansion by the
Aztec and Inca in ancient times or Europeans in
has defined culture contact as "a predisposition for
groups to interact with 'outsiders' - a necessity
the last 500 years. However, as developed further
below, care must be taken not to conflate colo-
created through human diversity, settlement pattern,
nization, a vehicle or manifestation of colonialism,
and desire for exchange - and to want to control
that interaction" (1998b:4). Schortman and Urban
with colonialism, a process. Colonialism in the
modern world, although sharing elements with
define culture contact in the same volume as "any
case of protracted, direct interchanges among mem- other colonial times, operated on "fixed orders of
bers of social units who do not share the same iden-
racial and cultural difference" (Gosden 2004:22)
and resulted from the trajectories of geographic
tity" ( 1 998: 1 02). Gosden recently offered a similar
definition but with attention to colonialism: "As expansion, mercantilism, and capitalism (Orser
1996). This colonialism is the focus of my article.
there is no such thing as an isolated culture, all cul-
tural forms are in contact with others. Culture con- Others have made it clear that this kind of colo-
tact is a basic human fact. What differentiates nialism may not apply to the ancient world, where
one can sometimes argue for colonies (e.g., trade
colonialism from other aspects of contact are issues
of power" (2004:5). diasporas) without colonialism in Mesopotamia
(Stein 2002) or even colonialism without colo-
In what follows, my critique of culture contact
archaeology in North America does not attemptnization
to in the Mediterranean (Dominguez 2002).
undermine the value of culture contact studies on By definition, the process of removing colonies
a broader level but, rather, to illustrate the ineffec-
or transferring political control from colonizing
tiveness of this term for studies of colonialism. As entity to independent settlements or burgeoning
a result of culture contact being a "basic human nations is decolonization, a condition that truly
fact," the terminology rapidly becomes vacuous happened in the "modern" world only in the
and uninformative, particularly in the case of North mid-twentieth century. This phenomenon lays the
America colonialism. Similarly, I think that we are foundation for postcolonial studies in humanities

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
the internal
and social sciences. Although a useful formal colonialism
def-that occurs when a settler
inition, treating colonialism (and population
its end) continues
in only to try to exert control over
this structural manner deflects attention from the social, political, economic, cultural, and sexual rela-
ways that indigenous people may have struggledtions did not cease into the twentieth century. Some
with the realities of colonial and settler societies in
would argue that it continues today in a number of
their territories. On the one hand, evidence abounds forms (Churchill 1998): "Such continuities make
indicating that shifts from colonial to postcolonialit difficult to believe that we are post-colonial any-
periods can bring about changes not only in admin-thing other than a formal sense, with the divide
istrative and governmental control but also in between the colonial and the post-colonial making
indigenous experiences, opportunities, and con- long-term historical analysis more difficult" (Gos-
straints in a system of domination. Latin Americaden 2004:156). The "colonial period" is a defin-
is a case in point where the loss of Spanish controlable moment in history for certain regions, but this
of Mexico in the early 1 820s resulted in the end of
periodization of history based on the structure of
New Spain and its colonies and the beginning ofthe settler nation cannot be allowed to box in colo-
the Republican period, with new contexts for nialism as a process.
indigenous people to act, react, and counteract Therefore, I use the term colonialism in this arti-
(Langer and Jackson 1988). cle to refer to the dual process ( 1 ) of attempted dom-
On the other hand, the end of a settler society'sination by a colonial/settler population based on
status as a colony does not necessarily mean thatperceptions and actions of inequality, racism,
this administrative label change has salience for alloppression, labor control, economic marginaliza-
involved, as illustrated again by the end of the Span-tion, and dispossession and (2) of resistance, acqui-
ish Empire in the Americas. Although the shifts inescence, and living through these by indigenous
political control in 1821 marked a new period inpeople who never permit these processes to become
the previous dominions of the Spanish Crown, fron- final and complete and who frequently retain or
tier locations such as California did not witness remake identities and traditions in the face of often
meaningful shifts for the California Indians who
brutal conditions. The latter fits comfortably within
worked in Franciscan missions and toiled on ran-the genre of postcolonial theory that has prolifer-
chos and in pueblos. That is, indigenous residents
ated in the last few decades following broadscale
continued for another decade in the mission and decolonization but does so in a materially
another two and a half decades in the ranchos and grounded, rather than textually privileged, way
pueblos before California was annexed by the(Gosden 2004:18-23). This gives archaeology its
theoretical and empirical power. The latter also
United States in 1 848. California was no longer part
of a Spanish colony and might arguably not have indicates that I do not mean for a focus on colo-
been a colony of Mexico but, rather, a territorial nialism to entail a focus on top-down change, over-
arching European powers, or deterministic
extension of the solidifying nation-state. Yet the end
of "colony" or "colonization" in formal historical outcomes. What matters is that we do not call these
terms did not mean the end of colonialism for Cal- relationships primarily "culture contact" for the
ifornia Native people. The 1830s and 1840s three reasons I develop below.
remained "colonial California" for Native people
engulfed in its problems and prospects (Silliman Emphasizing Encounter over Entanglement
2004a), making my earlier anecdote pertinent
despite not being "Spanish colonial" proper. The first problem with labeling colonialism as cul-
The same can be said for indigenous contexts ture contact concerns the way a long-term process
in the United States from its inception. Gosden has of colonial entanglement is represented as a poten-
argued that rather than entering a postcolonial or tially short-duration collision of distinct cultures.
decolonized realm following independence from Even though archaeologists have documented long-
the British Empire, "the egalitarian American term culture contact, this terminology should not
republic forced Indians to do what the French and apply to colonial cases in North America. The label
British empires could not: to become true colonial "contact" implies, particularly to nonarchaeologist
subjects" (2004:30). For many indigenous people, audiences, a short-duration event, novelty of

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
encounter, separate histories

structing new culturalof contacting
identities as they adjusted to gr
and the importanceEuropean
of diseases,
exchange
technologies, andrelationsh
distant power
struggles" (Hill 1998:148).
Although one might question whether After the decades
such or en
even centuries
ters are "culture" contact at of colonialism
all, the thatsituations
characterize u
this rubric are a different breed than the colonial much of what North American archaeologists
interactions that characterized full-scale European study, such as missions, ranches, trade outposts, and
settlement of indigenous areas. These types of military stations, the notion of contact is inappro-
encounters did occur, even in areas later charac- priate. The same applies to Native villages and
terized by colonialism, as exemplified by the Euro- house sites associated with these settings: "Thus
pean explorers sailing the waters of eastern North the historical archaeologies of indigenous societies
America, western North America, and the Pacific do not cease with contact (or shortly thereafter).
Islands in various centuries. They included Rather they should be understood really to begin
moments of first (sometimes additional) contact then and to continue up to the present, as they do
and exchange - material, genetic, epidemiologi- for the colonial societies with which they share
cal, sexual - that had profound consequences for landscapes and experiences" (Murray 2004a: 8).
later interactions and the demographic sustain- Unfortunately, in North American archaeolog-
ability of indigenous groups. ical parlance, archaeologists generally label Native
As Nicholas Thomas (1991:83-84) demon- American sites as "contact," not colonial, when
strates for Melanesia, Europeans held no position they contain European goods, but the European
during first contact to enforce demands or labor (a sources of those goods and contexts of multiethnic
situation that Gosden [2004] would still term "mid- interaction are referred to as "colonial," not con-
dle ground" colonialism). Europeans may have tact, sites. Orser (1996:59-60) hints at the persis-
approached their encounters and the indigenous tence of this dilemma when he astutely observes
people with whom they made contact from a colo- that a collection of symposium papers on French
nial mind-set, but the interactions often constituted colonial archaeology resulted in two volumes, one
a different order than the settlement, missioniza- on colonialism when talking about the French
tion, and exploitation that frequently followed. (Walthall 1991) and one on contact when talking
Sahlins's (1981, 1985) work on encounters between about the interactions between French and Native
Pacific Islanders and British sailors, particularly Americans (Walthall and Emerson 1992). The
Captain Cook, offers examples of this type of inheritance of this site nomenclature stems in part
encounter. Sahlins charts the cultural histories and
from Fontana's (1965) early and highly problem-
context from which Hawaiians and other Native atic classification system for "historic sites archae-
ology,"
islanders understood the British who explored their which included a five-part scheme:
islands and their interactions with them, tracing
"protohistoric ," "contact," "postcontact," "frontier,"
out the different experiences and strategies
and "nonaboriginal."2 Although "protohistoric" and
employed by commoners and elite, men and "postcontact" are still in use, archaeologists seem
women. Initial explorations by Europeans along
to prefer now, in a shorthand manner, to place
together under a "contact" rubric all studies per-
California's coast offer another example, one that
taining to indigenous-European encounters,
has been investigated archaeologically (Lightfoot
and Simmons 1998). whether first contacts in the 1 6th century or indus-
Yet most archaeological studies that fall under
trial labor contexts in the early twentieth century
the rubric of culture contact do not concern these
(see Cobb 2003b).3
initial encounters, first contacts, or intermittent vis- However, these long-term contexts we mistak-
its. In fact, archaeologists often try too hard to focusenly call "contact" involve the intertwining of his-
on these early moments or at least believe that they tories, experiences, and structures of colonialism.
are actually focusing on such initial encountersAs Hill (1998) has argued, the same perspectives
when they are not: "The celebration of first contact that might illuminate particular moments of first
situations also distracts attention from important contact do not suffice when considering long-term
changes that unfolded in remote areas . . . [as] processes of power relations and violence. Simi-
indigenous peoples of the Americas were con- larly, "a model of acculturation, developed to

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
explain cross-cultural exchange, is not an

nialism appro-
is final or determinant. What it does sug-
priate model for studies of conquest or colonial-
gest, however, is that calling such interactions "con-
ism" (Cusick 1998a: 138). Considering a collision
tact" provides little clarity and obscures the nature
of multiple
of cultural understandings may (or may intersections.
not, accord-
ing to Obeyesekere [1992]) reveal what Native
Archaeologist might argue that "contact" only
Hawaiians "thought" as Captain Cook sailed the
serves as a convenient label, one past which they
ritual path of Lono, but these models
quickly of cultural
move to discuss colonial relationships, but
interaction cannot provide analytical
the access to the
term holds implications for disciplinary prac-
unequal relations of power, labor, tice
economy, gen-
and for presentation of archaeological results.
der, sex, and politics that wrapped up colonizers
Drawing on Wolf's (1 982) classic analogy for iso-
and colonized alike in later times and other
lated places.
cultures, Paynter makes a poignant observa-
tion about conceptual
As Byrne (2003:83) has recently argued for her- terminology and its
implications:
itage preservation in New South Wales, "Unfortunately, words like 'Contact
Australia,
dividing these realms artificially Period'
"disentangles"
commonly used by archaeologists to talk
indigenous and settler histories andabout
promotes them between would-be colonizing
the interaction
Europeans
as segregated cultural experiences. He rightlyandnotes
their targets sound too much like
that this is a political process of representation,
the comforting click of billiard balls on the cosmic
even though perhaps more a result billiard table of world history" (2000a:9). Extend-
of entrenched
protocols of archaeological training,
ingfunding, andthese billiard balls do not merge
this metaphor,
policies. These are the disciplinary ruts
and that
reform we paths intersect, and they only
as their
must escape, as Lightfoot ( 1 995) hascan break upon
argued for impact
the with other balls. As a result,
prehistory-history divide in North
someAmerican
archaeologists, other scholars, and particu-
archaeology. larly the general public still look only for the shat-
Rather than episodes of contact between inde- tered indigenous people scattered about on the
pendent cultures struggling simply to make cogni- velvet, cracked open or forced into pockets by the
tive sense of each other, colonialism is about "white" cue ball. This is a problematic view of
intersections. Intersections of identities, relations, colonialism and indigenous action, and its greatest
and intimacies require a different perspective implications may be in the way archaeological
because they involve entanglement (Harrison 2004; reporting is perceived by nonspecialists.
N. Thomas 1991 ; Williamson and Harrison 2004), The common image of contact manipulates
"shared histories" and shared predicaments (Mur-process into event. One can recall a culture contact
ray 1996, 2004a, 2004b), and an "intertwining ofepisode as a bounded, historical event - people
two or more formerly distinct histories into a sin- come into contact, they change with respect to one
gle history characterized by processes of domina- another's traditions, and a final product appears.
tion, resistance, and accommodation" (Hill This forms the core of acculturation paradigms in
1998:149). The entangling, sharing, and inter-the 1930s (Herskovits 1958). Murray sums up this
twining do not unify; however, "the existence of
dilemma with respect to Australia:
'shared histories' and 'shared identities' does not
Where once the historical archaeology of Abo-
mean that there can ever be, or should ever be, a
riginal Australia might have been conceived of
single account of those histories or those identities"
as the archaeology of "contact," an encounter
(Murray 2004b:215). Autonomous, self-contained
of brief duration after which Indigenous peo-
cultures do not exist in colonialism, something that
ple became archaeologically indistinguishable
Wolf (1982) demonstrated over two decades ago;
from poor white rural or urban populations, we
instead, individuals walk the fine, often painful,
now understand that the process is more com-
line between old ways and new directions, past
plicated and ambiguous (and more likely to
practices and future hopes, dangerous times and
yield counter-intuitive results) [2004b:215].
uncertain outcomes. This does not deny cultural tra-
ditions and cognitive understandings, does not sug-The same issues hold for North America: "As
gest that groups have no identity boundariesthe
or inheritors of a long tradition of 'frontier' his-
resistant practices, and does not insinuate that colo-
tory, we are in danger yet again of conceiving North

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
American intercultural
legacy. contacts as
It ties the past to the brief,
present deci
- "we are still
in the contact period" rather
and one-sided confrontations (Wilson 1999:6) -than
and gives as
tracted, cumulativeremarkable
and salience
reciprocal associati
to contemporary struggles for
indigenous people
(Wood 1994:486). Whether in (Gosden 2004; Lilley 2000;
archaeological
Murray
lications, museums, or 2004a; Thomas parks,
historic 2000). we can
sent these contact events as severed and distinct
from the present, as fleeting albeit significant Downplaying Severity and Power
moments in world history. The public - particu-
A second problem plaguing culture contact stud-
larly mainstream America - may like the comfort-
ies is the way that notions of contact can downplay
ing click, a momentary sound in a larger historical
narrative that frequently centers on European
colonial relations of power, inequality, domination,
expansion and the rise of the modern world, and
but oppression. The problem has plagued accul-
indigenous people whose histories we purportturation
to studies since they began drawing on the
1936 "Memorandum for the Study of Accultura-
recover and study find that click less than com-
forting: "Why do we put this distance between tion"
this (Redfield et al. 1936) because power was
either ignored or downplayed to the point that it
contact period of history and ourselves? It is polit-
ically safer and emotionally less taxing" (Wilson
was then implicitly assumed to reside with the "con-
1999:5). queror" (see Cusick 1998a: 129-132). Colonialism
Unlike notions of contact, colonialism forces proper
the involved institutional and personal relations
recognition that these metaphorically untenable of power, labor and economic hierarchy, attacks on
balls are actually part of much larger networks, cultural practices and beliefs, and often racism with
open to negotiation, and in fact all transformed in effects on indigenous people and their strate-
direct
those intersections. In many cases, so-called iso-
gies or abilities for survival. Yet it did not strike one-
lated cultures affected each other with material sided, "fatal impact" blows to indigenous groups,
items, diseases, and incursions long before full-
despite the fact that the classic "first contact" cases
fledged colonialism gained momentum (Wolf of autonomous interaction often gave way to vio-
1982). The notion of individual cultures themselves
lence and attempted genocide (Hill 1998).
in the "modern world" may even be a colonial cre- To characterize colonialism, some might argue
ation (Dirks 1992), and the bounded ethnogeo-
that archaeologists already have a way of distin-
guishing different kinds of contact that emphasize
graphic maps of early anthropology that still inform
the nature of inequality and power relationships,
archaeologists today, for better or worse, are a case
in point. Colonialism, as an analytical framework,such as "directed" versus "nondirected" contact
(Spicer 1962; see Cusick 1998a: 137-139). Recent
ushers in a consideration of social agents - indi-
gene, colonist - negotiating new, shared social ter-
archaeological studies have used that distinction for
reasonable interpretations (Saunders 1998; Wagner
rain forged in sustained contact. It does not presume
homogeneous cultures bumping into one another,
1998), but I wonder why we still bother with such
especially as "colonial settlements were pluralis-a term as directed contact for Native North Amer-
tic entrepots where peoples of diverse backgrounds ica when colonialism better captures the process
and links our archaeological work to broader his-
and nationalities lives, worked, socialized, and pro-
created" (Lightfoot 1995:201). torical and anthropological studies. I have met
Colonialism is not about an event but, rather, many cultural anthropologists who recoil at the
about processes of cultural entanglement, whether
thought that archaeologists still use the term cul-
ture contact to describe colonial processes. Even
voluntary or not, in a broader world economy and
considering what culture means to participants in
system of labor, religious conversion, exploitation,
material value, settlement, and sometimes imperi-the interaction, "the notion of 'culture contact' fails
alism. We find it much harder to pinpoint when to take into account that, in colonial contexts, cul-
colonialism, rather than the "Contact Period,"tural processes were themselves effects and forms
of power" (Den Ouden 2005:16). Moreover, it
ended. Colonialism is an unfinished, diverse pro-
would be hard to imagine how Schrire's (1995)
ject that cannot be ignored in today's contempo-
book Digging through Darkness, about South
rary world, even if considering only its extensive

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
sionaries atexperi-
African archaeology, history, and personal small outposts near the Great Lakes
would have
ence, might have differed - and I would had lost
argue, very different experiences than
those inabout
significant impact - had she not talked southern California who were forced to
colo-
nialism and instead focused on directed or nondi- work from dawn until dusk under the control of
Catholic Franciscan missions. Maritime indige-

rected contact.4 Her third chapter, "Chronicles of
nous groups along 16th-century coastal Maine
Contact," outlines much more than cultures bump-
ing into each other; she (1995:49-70) describeswould have had very different experiences trading
encounters in South Africa between the Dutch andwith European fishing vessels than seventeenth-
Khoikhoi as palpably and strikingly colonial. century eastern Massachusetts groups who were
The recognition of violence and harsh realities
proselytized in "Praying Indian Towns" by Eng-
does not at all mean that North American archae- lish colonists and violently incarcerated after King
Philip's War in 1675. Even in severe cases, Native
ologists now need to think of something like "con-
Americans in California and New England who
quest" as a valid model - far from it, in fact. Despite
its common usage in Latin America, conquest has
battled militarily with invading European forces
been criticized even in that historical tradition as a interfaced very differently with colonialism than
term that portrays too "final" of a scenario whenmembers of those same indigenous groups who
the on-the-ground realities were more complex andwere incorporated into colonial households as
negotiated (Taylor 1994: 154). The point is to rec-domestics or field hands. I doubt that any justifi-
ognize how violence- and power-free the notion of cation exists for categorizing all of these instances
contact can be. Take, for instance, the words of aunder a "culture contact" label.
Latin American historian: "The Spaniards' If taken too far, one might claim that my criti-
encounter with the Indians was not simply culturecism of culture contact could portray all indigenous
contact in which beneficial innovations were freelypeople as passive victims in a colonial scheme or
adopted or merged with the existing cultures. Itall indigenous histories as subsumed in a broader
was a conquest" (Hassig 1994:147). Culture con- colonial narrative. However, such a position would
tact transforms here into a restatement of accul-
be academically false and politically disengaged.
Rubertone notes that we run the "risk of encour-
turation, and likely Hassig is not the only one who
undergoes that terminological slip. aging explanations that emphasize colonial encoun-
The need to remember the violence, disparities,
ters as the single transforming, if not traumatic,
and intersections during colonialism should not
event in Native peoples' lives, rather than acknowl-
edging their ability to withstand and sometimes
dispel possibilities of contact episodes where peo-
resist these invasions and the incursions that fol-
ple met as autonomous groups and neither had
lowed" (2000:434^35). I agree strongly. How-
political or power sway over the other. Anthropol-
ogists and historians have used these important
ever, admitting the profundity of the latter does not
require that we abandon a focus on colonial
cases to levy criticisms of the "fatal impact" model
processes in place of an emphasis on culture con-
that portrays European contact delivering a one-
sided crushing blow to a passive and incapabletact. It simply means that we have to devise more
sophisticated analytical lenses and terminologies
indigenous population. These contact cases, or what
Gosden better terms "middle ground colonialism,"
that can capture the uniqueness of indigenous expe-
riences, lives, and traditions in colonial or post-
have revealed how indigenous resistance and agen-
colonial eras. We must be vigilant to prevent a
das helped chart the trajectory of later relationships
and how indigenous people made sense out needed
of focus on colonialism-as-context from turn-
ing into an unwanted focus on colonialism-as-

colonists and their material culture based on pre-
defining moment.
existing meanings and traditions (e.g., Clarke 2000;
Rogers 1990;Whelan 1993). Recognizing overarching structures and rela-
Yet we must consider carefully the many years
tions of power in colonialism does not deny indige-
nous agencies, intentions, resistances, or traditions.
of postcontact life for Native Americans and recall
the diversity of indigenous experiences possible In
in fact, quite the opposite is true, despite early
the realm of colonial entanglement. For instance,
anthropological traditions that focused on the for-
Native Americans who traded with Jesuit mis- mation of "conquest societies" (Foster 1960). Con-

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
(Howson 1990;
textualizing individual actionSingleton within
1998). Howson (1990)
a colo
world places social agents
has maintained in real-world
that these situa
acculturation-style mod-
and distinctive practices
els did notthrough which
truly address the complexities they
of inequal-
tiate identities and ity, resistance, and the structural
communities. To order of
ignore
nialism's sharper plantations,means
edge and Ferguson (1992)
to has argued
overlook
instead for a model of creolization.
settings in which indigenous people In a related
frequ
found themselves laboring:
vein, Epperson notesmissions,
that emphasizing theplanta partial
autonomy
ranches, forts, mines, and of farms.
oppressed slaves in creating new on
Focusing
cases of autonomousmeanings
contact,and practices is worthwhile
trade and and appro-
exch
or armed conflict abbreviates the
priate but that "overemphasizing the diversit
autonomy of
indigenous experiences inruns
slave culture post-Columbian
the risk of mystifying relations N
America and elsewhere.
of power""Contact
(1990:35). I think the period"
same outlook can res
tends to privilege these
sharpen our moments.
archaeological view of Native A Amer-
balan
approach emphasizes ican
the experiences in colonial times. practices
creativity, Little parallel
to plantations
resiliency of indigenous peopleexists in cases
and thatthewe might call
severi
colonial rule, labor
"firstrequirements, econ
contact" situations in the Americas, but the
inequality, religious persecution,
division breaks down quicklyand so
thereafter whenon.
faced In
with colonial"contact"
trast to the case in actual institutions like missions,
sites, ranches,
arch
ogists do not have an easy
and mines task of
or with noninstitutional butrecover
still starkly
indigenous people in colonial
those settings.
colonial spaces of l
term domination where individuals found it diffi- An answer to the question of why plantation
cult to stake a material or spatial claim, but results contexts are not characterized as culture contact is
are promising (Deagan 1983, 1996; Harrison 2002, that the so-called contact literature currently offers
2004; Silliman 2001a, 2004a, 2005). For instance,little clarity to the experiences of enslaved Africans
Lightfoot et al. (1998) demonstrate the persistence or to plantation social order. This marks a sharp
and negotiation of cultural identities among dif- reversal of an earlier trend, in which the anthro-
ferent indigenous groups cohabiting within the con- pology of people with African ancestry in the New
text of Russian colonialism. World fell squarely in acculturation, or culture con-
tact, research (Herskovits 1927, 1958). The reasons
As a way of integrating colonialism and power
for the reversal are detectable in the hesitation of
when studying North American indigenous people,
African Diaspora scholars: "Plantation slavery can
the historical archaeologies of slavery offer a point
of comparison. Why do historical archaeologists inbe addressed within the study of culture contact but
North America typically not consider plantation only when it is recognized that relations of power
slavery studies as culture contact? Are these not
were central to the construction of any interaction"
cases of different cultural groups (i.e., African and(Singleton 1998: 173). The need for this disclaimer
European) coming into regular contact and con-should awaken many "contact period" archaeolo-
fronting each other's cultural practices while nego-
gists in Native North America to the notion that their
tiating their own? The few who have situated their
work has yet to grapple fully with issues of power
work in culture contact studies have expressed sig-and colonialism and to examine the ways in which
indigenous people became implicated in often
nificant hesitation and anxiety in doing so (Arm-
strong 1998; Singleton 1998), particularly because
severe relations of inequality, labor, and racism.
their other publications grapple explicitly with colo- For all the reasons cited above, the terminology
embedded in culture contact frequently implies
nialism and its various expressions (Singleton 1995,
1999,2001). short-duration encounters, autonomy, and, most
In the 1980s, many plantation studies drew on
important at this juncture, labor-free and culture-
acculturation models derived from early-twenti-only relations. Such characteristics do little to
eth-century cultural anthropological research onaddress the full range of African and African- Amer-
Native Americans, but these attempts did not ican experiences on plantations, but the more press-
acknowledge their link to Native American issues
ing dilemma is that such a focus also does relatively
(Singleton 1998: 174), nor did they evade criticismlittle to illuminate the experiences of indigenous

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
share.Spanish
people who joined or were forced into Colonialismmis-
does not offer the ultimate ori-
sions in Florida, Mexican ranchos in
ginnorthern
of difference,Cal-
traditions, and cultural practices,
but Pacific
ifornia, Russian trading posts on the it providesCoast
a context that cannot be ignored
of North America, English "Praying Towns"culture.
when discussing in The minimal overlap
New England, or - farther afieldbetween - Spanish and
those who profess to study the contact
Mexican haciendas in Mexico or settler livestock period and those who study plantation slavery in
stations in northern Australia. This results in plan-
North America also relates to the assumption that
tation archaeologists seeing the work of historical
Native American and African historical experiences
archaeologists on Native Americans as irrelevant
in the Americas were separate, despite the multi-
(measured by a relative lack of citations), despite
tude of interethnic unions between them that carry
strong political connotations today, particularly in
the fact that many studies of colonial-period Native
New England. This overlap should be noticeable
Americans actually do engage with topics of cre-
olization (Cusick2000; Deagan 1996, 1998; Loren
in a culture contact realm, but contact period
2000), identities (Lightfoot et al. 1998; Loren
researchers typically ignore it. Acknowledging the
2001a, 2001b, 2003; Silliman 2001a; Voss 2002), complex interplay of colonialism would rectify the
labor (Silliman 2001b, 2004a), and resistance imbalance. Finally, contact period archaeologists
(Rubertone 1989; Scarry 2001; Scarry and McE- typically do not engage with questions of race,
wan 1995). despite the importance of this topic in cultural
anthropological studies of colonialism (e.g., Den
Again using lack of citations as a measure, cul-
Ouden 2004; Thomas 1994) and African Ameri-
ture contact archaeologists in North America typ-
can archaeology (Epperson 1990; Franklin 2001;
ically return the favor by not consulting plantation
Orser 2000, 2003; Singleton 1995).
and slavery studies for any insight into the politics
and practices of social inequality and colonial
administration. The lack of engagement ignores
Privileging Predefined Traits over Creative
the astute observations by Farnsworth Cultural Products
(1989:230-231), after studying both slave planta-
tions and Spanish missions in North America, that To identify the third problem in culture contact
these two institutions share many of the same char-archaeology requires looking at definitions of cul-
acteristics. Speaking broadly, Paynter makes a sim-ture continuity and change. One of the more diffi-
ilar observation about common themes in historical cult positions upheld, however implicitly, by the
archaeological research: "The most obvious his-notion of culture contact is that the collision of peo-
torical point of common interest and work is in theple in the post- A.D. 1400 global word involved
contact period. This too-often-ignored period of
only an exchange, adoption, retention, and discard
colonialism and conquest, in North America and cultural traits. Acculturation models are founded
of
elsewhere around the globe, saw the massive dis-

on this assumption. Although acculturation termi-
location of indigenous people and their practices nology has decreased within the discipline, the core
from crucial land resources by new ways of life ideas often linger, particularly in popular interpre-
based on capitalist accumulation, white supremacy,tations of the past: a "donor" culture introduces to
and patriarchy" (2000b: 202). Archaeologists' workor forces on a "recipient" culture new ideas, mate-
rial, practices, or relations. In this view, predefined
on indigenous people must be recast so as to tackle
these broader issues of colonialism in North cultures, whether European or indigenous, change
America. because of their encounters with other cultural sys-
Complementing the lack of attention to colonial tems, typically involving a directional shift from
relationships in Native North America, the discon- what they had been prior to contact toward some-
nect between the archaeology of slavery and the thing akin to the contacting culture. Distinct,
archaeology of Native-European "contact" also bounded cultures make up the poles from or toward
relates subtly to the perception that Native Ameri- which these groups move, despite the multiethnic
cans and Africans share no common heritage, nature of colonialism.
despite the one poignant yet diverse experience - Arkush (2000) offers a recent illustration of the
colonialism - that the two highly diverse groups did persistence of this notion. He (2000: 194) argues for

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
acculturation as a valid framework, forinNative

We can perhaps think of cultures contact as A
icans being the "receptor
a way to sort culture"
out these issues, but (albeit
I remain uncon-not
vinced that such a notioncontact,
sively so), and for nondirected offers the most compre-
all des
hensive
the fact that his study framework. For
involves one, the issues revolve
late-nighteenth-
around more
early-twentieth-century than a simplistic notion ofin
interactions "culture"
Califo
between Paiute and Euro- American settlers in what because they summon identity, ethnicity, and active
is clearly colonialism. Although Herskovitsagency. Only in the 1990s with the influence of
( 1 958: 1 1 9) warned against assuming that the change interpretive, contextual, and feminist archaeolo-
will always be toward white European or Americangies did agent-centered approaches secure a
cultures, Native Americans are typically still pre- foothold in studies of culture contact (Deagan 1996,
sumed to move toward Europeanness with the adop-1998; Lightfoot 1995; Lightfoot etal. 1998). These
tion of Western material goods (for critiques, seeinterpretations relied not on atomistic, self-inter-
Lightfoot 1995:206-207; Orser 1996:60-66; ested individuals performing on a colonial stage
Rubertone 1989:34-36, 2001:430-432). but, rather, on culturally produced and culturally
Alternatively, what if instead of becoming moreproducing, historically contingent social agents
European, however defined, with the adoption ofdealing with complex situations. These influential
introduced material items, Native Americans or contributions served to shift emphasis from accul-
other indigenous people fashioned a way to remainturation, which implied more one-way movements
Native in very changed and very conflicted cir-of cultural traits, to transculturation, which involved
cumstances? What if change and continuity - as wecomplex mixtures of cultural and individual inter-
often think about in archaeology - are thought of actions that offered the possibility of multiple direc-
as the same process? This does not presume an tions of influence (Deagan 1998). They also
essentialized identity but, rather, one that can be inspired efforts to look at the complex material
maintained or mobilized, entrenched or regained,ways that indigenous people and settlers forged
in colonial worlds. In seventeenth-century south-ahead in colonial worlds (Harrison 2002, 2004;
ern New England, Narragansett people confronted Lightfoot et al. 1998; Loren 2001a, 2001b; Mur-
colonialism, not contact, head-on and altered theirray 2004a, 2004c; Rubertone 2001; Scarry 2001;
burial and material practices to strategically surviveScarry and Maxham 2002; Silliman 2001 a, 2001b;
the colonial world - but not by "acculturating" to Wesson 2002; see van Dommelen 2002 for a related
Europeanness (Nassaney 1989; see the focus on example).
resistance in Rubertone 1989). In northern Cali- The forging ahead creates part of what might be
fornia, indigenous people adopted European mate-termed "colonialism's culture" and constitutes a
rial items at the Russian colony of Ross (Lightfootpostcolonial theory of colonialism (Thomas 1 994).
et al. 1998) and at the Mexican-era Rancho "Colonialism's culture" is not simply imposed from
Petaluma (Silliman 2001a) but in particularly a European core or pre-given as a uniform entity;
Native ways that give little indication of "accul-
it is made, remade, and contested in "projects" and
in the interaction between individuals (Thomas
turation." In the Great Lakes region, the Chippewa
and other tribal nations used the fur trade and nat- 1994; see also Gosden 2004; Murray 2004a). The
ural resources market, coupled with indigenous

creation of colonial cultures takes place both in the
economic relations of reciprocity, to dodge incor-
colony and in the motherland; it is not a push from
poration into a capitalist economy for close to two
core to periphery. Variability characterizes not only
centuries (Cleland 1992, 1993). Other studies haveindigenous responses to colonial encounters (N.
revealed that indigenous people changed theirThomas 1991 ; see Waselkov 1993 for an archaeo-
material repertoire with the addition of European logical example) but also the assumed uniformity
of indigenous and colonizing groups (Lightfoot
goods but that they held to traditional ways of using
the landscape and viewing place, such as in New1995; Lightfoot and Martinez 1995; Schortman
England (Rubertone 1989, 2000). These casesand Urban 1998:108-109; Simmons 1988; Stoler
speak of individuals living through new colonial
1989; Thomas 1994). Colonial frontiers, the front-
line of much sustained European-indigenous con-
worlds, sometimes resisting and other times mak-
ing do, but never acculturating. tact, manifested the fluidity and complexity of

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
colonists sometimes not confident of their own tion of values on all sides, creating new ways
identities and role in a broader colonizing schemeof doing things in a material and social sense.
(Dirks 1992:7; Stoler 1989:137; Thomas A stress on creativity takes us away from
notions such as fatal impact, domination and
1994:143-169), of colonists often far away from
resistance or core and periphery, emphasizing
the core of presumed cultural uniformity in Euro-
pean nations (Lightfoot 1995:200; Lightfoot and
that colonial cultures were created by all who
Martinez 1995), and of individuals interacting faceparticipated in them, so that all had agency
and social effect, with colonizer and colonized
to face and negotiating the details of life and iden-
tity on the cultural frontiers of colonialism. alike being radically changed by the experi-
ence [Gosden 2004:25].
Colonial settings tend to confuse our assump-
tions about the easily recognizable sides in culture
contact, not only in revealing more diversity in theIn no way should this perspective be construed
seemingly homogenized two sides of "colonial"
as building up a notion of colonialism as a "good
and "indigenous" but also in highlighting the move-
thing," nor should it take postcolonial theory to the
ments of individuals in and out of those assumed extreme of calling all colonial identities hybrids
sides as they acquiesce to or contest various colo-lacking any ties to the precolonial past or to authen-
nial projects. This vision of colonialism admits aticity as defined by courts that decide on Native
contextually fluid and ambiguous, yet oftenAmerican heritage and lineage. Instead, it calls for
defended, boundary between the presumedexploring who maneuvers, redirects, deploys, and
dichotomies of colonizer and colonized (Murraysubverts colonialism and how they do so. That is,
2004a: 10). Similarly we have yet to take Ferguson'scolonialism becomes a context, albeit out of neces-
astute statement to heart: "Although Indians weresity, in which indigenous people find ways to
survive.
native to the New World, we may safely say that
neither Native Americans, Europeans, nor Africans As an example, labor is a node of colonial inter-
were 'ancestrally indigenous' to New World plan- action laced with power, but rather than seeing
tation settlements" (1992:xli) or, I would add, tolabor as only an economic or political force
other venues such as missions and settler towns. imposed on indigenous people by colonial settlers,
it can be viewed simultaneously as a vehicle for
As a result, archaeological discoveries of ceramics
from Europe or stone tools from local sources at asocial action on the part of those performing the
labor (Silliman 2001b). Doing so has begun to clar-
colonial site do not easily speak about their uses or
ify the nature of colonial experiences for Native
their mobilization in identities. These objects do not
simply demarcate "cultures." Americans in California's Spanish missions, for
Rather than arguing that colonialism brings these institutions focused on much more than "spir-
about an opportunity for individuals, particularlyitual conversion" in their bodily discipline and eco-
indigenous ones, to suddenly remake their tradi-nomic activities. Missionaries regularly used labor
tions and to craft a new kind of instrumentalist as a conversion tool (e.g., "idle hands are the devil's
identity, these perspectives indicate that colonial-workshop") and as a means of sustaining the colo-
ism must be understood as simultaneously creativenial community, but a labor-as-practice approach
and destructive. Focusing on colonialism easilyhas given me ways to envision material culture in
summons policies of destruction and scorched earththe context of social and physical labor relations.
(and often should!), but these images must be tem-In this view, it is possible to see how indigenous
pered with the ways that indigenous people (and people responded to labor and made use of its mate-
colonists) devised a new world of "shared" land-riality for their own ends and projects (Silliman
scapes, experiences, and histories. Such a per- 2001b).
spective is in no way apologetic: Similarly, a colonial framework has revealed
the complexities of material culture in Native Amer-
Paradoxically perhaps, I see colonialism as
ican living areas and their relationships to labor
often being a source of creativity and experi-
duties at California ranchos following mission sec-
ment, and while certainly not being without
ularization (Silliman 2004a). These ranchos, espe-
pain, colonial encounters cause the dissolu-
cially the large one forming the focus of my

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
research, required hundreds of

Many Native Americans Native
built and maintainedpeopl
iden-
tities through
work on farming, herding, novel combinations
and of material cul-
manufacturing
ture. As such, I advocate studying
through policies of peonage-like material culture
indebtedness,
not as either "Native"
right capture, and political or "European"
alliance but as items
building
taken up by individuals
neighboring tribal leaders. to forge their way in
Investigating new
part
Native worker living colonial
siteworlds on(see also Loren 2001a:67;
Rancho N.
Petalu
(1834-1 850s) produced numerous
Thomas 1991). artifacts
The defining element for material
taining to residential life
culture in
rests at leastthe
as much context of
in its use and negoti-
ated meaning
duties. Materials ranged from as in its origins (Silliman 2005; van t
chipped-stone
Dommelen to
to glass bottle fragments, 2002:123-124).
scissors We must
and get away
thim
Ignoring labor might from
have essentialist
led notions
me of towhat indigenous
talk mate- a
only
rial culture patterns
Native American cultural looks like and insteadas
focusthough
on how indi- t
were isolated from viduals
the colonial
materially labor
and contextually regim
constructed or
expressed
which people worked foridentities
many - those of traders, a
hours laborers,
day.
tering on colonialism, spouses,
rather warriors,
thanritualists, seamstresses,-field
contact with
de-emphasis on labor hands,
and men, and women -
power -ingave
colonial settings
me withthe
chase that I needed to track the effects of colonial
the resources at hand. In these ways, we can still
labor in Native households and gender relations
hold onto the promise of previous culture contact
through studies of dietary debris, discarded tools,studies that reveal the singularity and complexity
and objects of daily life (Silliman 2004a). of Native persistence, survival, and change but can
now contextualize them within the last 500 years
Another central difficulty with the cultural traits
notion lies in our conceptions of material culture of colonialism.
in the realm of colonialism. Despite great advances

in interpretive archaeology and material culture Conclusion
studies, some archaeologists still prefer to see mate-
rial culture as a reflection of culture rather than an North American archaeologists face several
active participant in constituting it. This theoreti-
predicaments in the study of indigenous people in
cal issue lies at the heart of our misunderstandings
the "contact period." How do we analyze their expe-
of colonialism. The perspective comes across
riences in ways that simultaneously admit the
harshness of colonial intrusion and capture the
clearly in culture contact studies where "European"
meanings of lived lives? How do we divest our
artifacts reflect "Europeanness" rather than consti-
tute the medium for expressing or contesting such studies of autonomous, bounded cultures and
an identity. As a result, the material culture ofreplace them with individual agents negotiating
indigenous lives during these times of upheavalcultural practices and discourses in multiethnic set-
and oppression becomes scattered and ambiguous tings? How do we forge better ties with archaeol-
by virtue of terminology. In North Americanogists working on the African Diaspora and
archaeology, glass bottles and metal tools are fre-enslavement? How do we come to grips with the
quently termed "historical artifacts" regardless of
legacy of colonialism that helped to define our dis-
who used them (i.e., Europeans or Native Ameri-
cipline of North American anthropology? In part,
the answer lies in revisiting our disciplinary ter-
cans), but indigenous-produced stone tools or shell
ornaments are rarely, if ever, called that, even minology
if and the implications of our work for the
descendants who bear the legacy of colonialism.
found well into defined "historic" periods. The clar-
ity of indigenous material practices clouds when
As highlighted above, both of these turns suggest
labels predefine these "historic" and "Native" arti-that archaeologists need to be very careful when
facts as incompatible in origin and purpose and asusing "culture contact" as a conceptual device in
irreconcilable when materializing colonial period
situations that are clearly colonial.
identities. Culture contact sounds as though entire cultures
In truth, however, these objects were the com-come into contact via brief encounters; as though
the collision happened between autonomous cul-
plex material package that constituted indigenous
resistance to and residence in colonial worlds. tures that remained bounded; and as though colo-

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
nial relations of power, labor, economy, and iden-

ities to recover realistic pictures of the Native Amer-
ican past and
tity carried little weight. In North America, to converse with those who find our
culture
contact archaeology typically refers to studies
archaeological of
work interesting or pertinent to their
lives.
the Native side of European-indigenous encoun-
ters. On the other hand, colonialism emphasizes
Acknowledgments. Shorter variants of this article were pre-
individuals struggling with power, domination, and
sented at the Fifth World Archaeological Congress in June
economic transformation; underscores long-term
2003, the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American
episodes of violence, oppression, and negotiation;
Archaeology in March 2004, and the "Intersections and
admits individuals forging theirExchanges:
way into Theorynew
and Practice in Culture Contact
worlds and identities; and recognizes no bounded at Stanford University in April
Research" mini-conference
2004. I thank the symposia organizers at all three for their
cultures while also recognizing the possibilities of
invitations to participate. I appreciate the helpful comments
ethnogenesis and cultural survivalonand revitaliza-
content, direction, and sources from the journal manu-
tion. Many North American archaeologists who
script reviewers: Rani Alexander, Tim Murray, and Bob
focus specifically on colonialism emphasize only
Paynter. I also thank those individuals who offered useful
the European aspects: colonies, colonial policies, on the article in its earlier pre-
comments or encouragement
sented forms: Tony Chapa, Charles Cleland, Jon Daehke,
and colonial government. Interestingly, this is very
Sandy Hollimon, Kathleen Hull, Roberta Jewett, Kurt
much unlike our colleagues who work in Mexico
Jordan, Rosemary Joyce, Kent Lightfoot, Diana Loren,
and the rest of Latin American and tend
Andrew to keep
Martindale, Nette Martinez, Alistair Paterson, Amy
colonialism in the foreground. For Ramsay,
NorthPatAmerica,
Rubertone, and Barb Voss. Furthermore, I am
grateful to my department
what we need is a sophisticated archaeology of colleagues, Amy Den Ouden and
Judy Zeitlin, for our ongoing discussions about culture con-
colonialism that centers on indigenous peoples and
tact and colonialism. As expected, I hold none of these indi-
their relations with, and in spite of, colonizers and
viduals responsible for what I have done with this article.
settlers.
Javier Urcid helped in preparing the final Spanish abstract.
I do not suggest that we must abandon a notion
of "contact," and I do not seek to exclude from this
References Cited
genre those archaeologists who do not work on
clearly colonial settings but want to Alexander,
focus theirRani T.per-
1 998 Afterword: Toward an Archaeological Theory of Cul-
spectives around a notion of culture contact. We cer-
ture Contact. In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction,
tainly have much to discuss. Similarly, I Change,
Culture do not and Archaeology, edited by James G.
Cusick,
think that archaeologists should agonize forpp. hours
476-495. Center for Archaeological Investi-
gations, Occasional Paper No. 25. Southern Illinois Uni-
over whether or not they have a culture contact or
versity, Carbondale.
colonial case. Instead, we should take quality
Arkush, Brooke S.time
2000 Improving
to understand the colonial and postcolonial Our Understanding of Native American
litera-
Acculturation through the Archaeological Record. In Inter-
ture and to trace out the implications of terminol-
pretations of Native North American Life: Material Con-
ogy for research and for descendant communities.
tributions to Ethnohistory, edited by Michael S. Nassaney
and Eric
The need for reconsidering terminology S. Johnson, pp. 188-224. University Press of
is partic-
Florida, Gainesville.
ularly salient for the archaeological studies that
Armstrong, Douglas V.
move beyond "first contact" situations to examine
1998 Cultural Transformation within Enslaved Laborer
the colonial worlds that indigenous Communities

people innavi- the Caribbean. In Studies in Culture Con-
tact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited
gated for decades, if not centuries. Referring to this
by James G. Cusick, pp. 378^401. Center for Archaeo-
research as the "historical archaeology of
logical indige-Occasional Paper No. 25. Southern
Investigations,
Illinois University,
nous people" (see Rubertone 2000) perhaps marks Carbondale.
Axtell, James
a step in the right direction. We may, in fact, find
1995 Columbian Encounters: 1992-1995. William and
that neither colonialism nor contact, as terms,
Mary best
Quarterly 52(4):649-696.
Byrne, Denis
captures the complete process of entanglement in
2003 The Ethos of Return: Erasure and Reinstatement of
all of post-Columbian North America. Regardless,
Aboriginal Visibility in the Australian Historical Land-
the point remains that we need to return the his-
scape. Historical Archaeology 37(1):73- 86.
torical realities of colonialism and contact to the Carlson, Catherine C.
2000 Archaeology of a Contact-Period Plateau Salishan
places and times where they belong. Conflating
Village at Thompson's River Post, Kamloops, British
them will continue to prove detrimental to our abil- Columbia. In Interpretations of Native North American

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
Den Ouden, to
Life: Material Contributions Amy E.
Ethnohistory, edited
2005
Michael S. Nassaney and Against S.
Eric Conquest: Native Peoples and
Johnson, the Struggle
pp. 272-2
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
for Reservation Land in Eighteenth-Century Connecticut.
Cassell, Mark S. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, in press.
Dirks, Nicholas
2003 Flint and Foxes: Chert ScrapersB. and the Fur Indu
in Late-Nineteenth- and 1992 Introduction: Colonialism and Culture. In Colonial-
Early-Twentieth-Century Nor
Alaska. In Stone Tool Traditions inedited
ism and Culture, the Contact
by Nicholas Era,
B. Dirks, pp. 1-25. edit
by Charles R. Cobb, pp. 151-164. University
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. of Alaba
Press, Tuscaloosa. Dominguez, Adolf o J.
Churchill, Ward 2002 Greeks in Iberia: Colonialism without Colonization.
1998 The Crucible of American Indian
In The Archaeology Identity.
of Colonialism, Z Mag
edited by Claire Lyons
zine, January: 47-51. and John K. Papadopoulos, pp. 65-95. Getty Research
Clarke, Anne Institute, Los Angeles.
2000 Time, Tradition, and Transformation: The Negotiation Epperson, Terrence W
of Cross-Cultural Engagement on Groote Eylandt, North- 1 990 Race and the Disciplines of the Plantation. Historical
ern Australia. The Archaeology of Difference: Negotiating Archaeology 24(4):29-36.
Cross-Cultural Engagements in Oceania, edited by Robin Farnsworth, Paul
Torrence and Anne Clark, pp. 142-177. Routledge, 1989 The Economics of Acculturation in the Spanish Mis-
London. sions of Alta California. In Research in Economic Anthro-
Cleland, Charles E. pology, Vol. 11, edited by Barry Isaac, pp. 217-249. JAI
1 992 Rites of Conquest: The History and Culture of Michi- Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.
gan 's Native Americans. University of Michigan Press,
Ferguson, Leland
Ann Arbor. 1 992 Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early African
1993 Economic and Adaptive Change among the Lake America, 1650-1800. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash-
Superior Chippewa of the Nineteenth Century. In Ethno- ington, D.C.
history and Archaeology: Approaches to Postcontact Fitzhugh, William W (editor)
Change in the Americas, edited by J. Daniel Rogers and 1 985 Cultures in Contact: The European Impact on Native
Samuel M. Wilson, pp. 1 1 1-122. Plenum Press, New York. Cultural Institutions in Eastern North America, A.D.
Cobb, Charles R. 1000-1800. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
2003a Introduction: Framing Stone Tool Traditions after D.C.
Fontana, Bernard L.
Contact. In Stone Tool Traditions in the Contact Era, edited
by Charles R. Cobb, pp. 1-12. University of Alabama 1965 On the Meaning of Historic Sites Archaeology. Amer-
Press, Tuscaloosa. ican Antiquity 31(1):61- 65.
Cobb, Charles R. (editor) Foster, George M.
2003b Stone Tool Traditions in the Contact Era. University 1 960 Culture and Conquest: America 's Spanish Heritage.
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 27. Wenner-
Cusick, James G. Gren Foundation, New York.
1998a Historiography of Acculturation: An Evaluation of Franklin, Maria
Concepts and Their Application in Archaeology. In Stud- 200 1 A Black Feminist-Inspired Archaeology? Journal of
ies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Social Archaeology 1(1): 108-125.
Archaeology, edited by James G. Cusick, pp. 126-145. Gosden, Chris
Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 1999 Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Rela-
No. 25. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. tionship. Routledge, London.
1998b Introduction. In Studies in Culture Contact: Inter- 2004 Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from
action, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited by James 5000 BC to the Present. Cambridge University Press,
G. Cusick, pp. 1-20. Center for Archaeological Investi- Cambridge.
gations, Occasional Paper No. 25. Southern Illinois Uni-Hall, Martin
versity, Carbondale. 1 993 The Archaeology of Colonial Settlement in Southern
2000 Creolization and the Borderlands. Historical Archae- Africa. Annual Review of Anthropology 22: 177-200.
ology 34(3):46-55. 1999 Archaeology and the Modern World: Colonial Tran-
Cusick, James G. (editor) scripts in South Africa and the Chesapeake. Routledge,
1998c Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture London.
Change, and Archaeology. Center for Archaeological Harrison, Rodney
Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 25. Southern Illinois 2002 Archaeology and the Colonial Encounter: Kimberley
University, Carbondale. Spear Points, Cultural Identity and Masculinity in the North
Deagan, Kathleen of Australia. Journal of Social Archaeology 2(3):352-377.
1983 Spanish St. Augustine: The Archaeology of a Colo-2004 Shared Histories and the Archaeology of the Pastoral
nial Creole Community. Academic Press, New York. Industry in Australia. In After Captain Cook: The Archae-
1996 Colonial Transformation: Euro-American Cultural ology of the Recent Indigenous Past in Australia, edited
Genesis in the Early Spanish- American Colonies. Journal
by Rodney Harrison and Christine Williamson, pp. 37-58.
of Anthropological Research 52(2): 135-160. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
1998 Transculturation and Spanish American Ethnogene-Harrison, Rodney, and Christine Williamson (editors)
sis: The Archaeological Legacy of the Quincentenary.2004
In After Captain Cook: The Archaeology of the Recent
Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change,Indigenous Past in Australia. AltaMira Press, Walnut
and Archaeology, edited by James G. Cusick, pp. 23-43. Creek, California.
Hassig, Ross
Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper
No. 25. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1 994 Mexico and the Spanish Conquest. Longman, London.

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
Herskovits, Melville J. 1 996 Contact Archaeology: Shared Histories? Shared Iden-

1 927 Acculturation and the American Negro. tities? In SITES: Nailing the Debate: Archaeology and
Southwest-
ern Political and Social Science Quarterly Interpretation
8:21 1-225. in Museums, edited by S. Hunt and Jane
1958 [1938] Acculturation: The Study of Culture
Lydon, pp.Contact.
201-213. Museum of Sydney, Sydney.
2004a The Archaeology of Contact in Settler Societies. In
Reprint. Peter Smith, Gloucester, Massachusetts.
Hill, Jonathon D. The Archaeology of Contact in Settler Societies, edited by
1998 Violent Encounters: Ethnogenesis and Tim Murray, pp. in
Ethnocide 1-16. Cambridge University Press,
Long-Term Contact Situations. In Studies in Cambridge.
Culture Con-
2004b Epilogue:
tact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, An Archaeology of Indigenous/Non-
edited
by James G. Cusick, pp. 146-171. Center for Archaeo-
Indigenous Australia from 1788. In After Captain Cook:
logical Investigations, Occasional Paper No.The
25.Archaeology
Southern of the Recent Indigenous Past in Aus-
Illinois University, Carbondale. tralia, edited by Rodney Harrison and Christine
Howson, Jean E. Williamson, pp. 21 3-223. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek,
1990 Social Relations and Material Culture: California.
A Critique of
2004c In Archae-
the Archaeology of Plantation Slavery. Historical the Footsteps of George Dutton: Developing a
ology 24(4):79-91. Contact Archaeology of Temperate Aboriginal Australia.
Johnson, Jay K. In The Archaeology of Contact in Settler Societies, edited
1997 Stone Tools, Politics, and the Eighteenth-Century
by Tim Murray, pp. 200-225. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Chickasaw in Northeast Mississippl. American Antiquity
62:215-230. Nassaney, Michael S.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1 989 An Epistemological Enquiry into Some Archaeolog-
1 979 Metaphor in Science. In Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ical and Historical Interpretations of 17th Century Native
ed., edited by Andrew Ortony, pp. 409-419. Cambridge American-European Relations. In Archaeological
University Press, Cambridge. Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by Stephen J. Shen-
Langer, Erick D., and Robert H. Jackson nan, pp. 76-93. Unwin Hyman, London.
1988 Colonial and Republican Missions Compared: The Michael S., and Eric S. Johnson
Nassaney,
Cases of Alta California and Southeastern Bolivia. Com- 2000 The Contributions of Material Objects to Ethnohis-
parative Studies in Society and History 30:286-3 1 1 . tory in Native North America. In Interpretations of Native
Lightfoot, Kent G. North American Life: Material Contributions to Ethno-
1 995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship history, edited by Michael S. Nassaney and Eric S. John-
between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. Ameri- son, pp. 1-30. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
can Antiquity 60: 199-217. Nassaney, Michael S., and Michael Volmar
Lightfoot, Kent G., and Antoinette Martinez 2003 Lithic Artifacts in Seventeenth-Century Native New
1 995 Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspec- England. In Stone Tool Traditions in the Contact Era,
tive. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:47 1^-92. edited by Charles R. Cobb, pp. 78-93. University of
Lightfoot, Kent G., Antoinette Martinez, and Ann M. Schiff Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1998 Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Obeyesekere, Gananath
Social Settings: An Archaeological Study of Culture 1992 The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: European Myth-
Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California. Amer- making in the Pacific. Princeton University Press,
ican Antiquity 63: 1 99-222. Princeton.
Lightfoot, Kent G., and William S. Simmons Orser, Charles E., Jr.
1998 Culture Contact in Protohistoric California: Social 1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World.
Contexts of Native and European Encounters. Journal ofPlenum Publishers, New York.
2003 Race and Practice in Archaeological Interpretation.
California and Great Basin Anthropology 20(2): 138-1 70.
Lilley, Ian (editor) University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Orser, Charles E., Jr. (editor)
2000 Native Title and the Transformation of Archaeology
in a Postcolonial World. Oceania Monographs 50. Ocean 2000 Race, Material Culture, and the Archaeology of Iden-
Publications, University of Sydney, Sydney. tity. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Loren, Diana DiPaolo Paynter, Robert
2000 The Intersections of Colonial Policy and Colonial 2000a Historical and Anthropological Archaeology: Forg-
Practice: Creolization on the 18th-Century ing Alliances. Journal of Archaeological Research 8( 1 ): 1 -
Louisiana/Texas Frontier. Historical Archaeology 37.
34(3):85-98. 2000b Historical Archaeology and the Post-Columbian
200 1 a Manipulating Bodies and Emerging Traditions at the World in North America. Journal of Archaeological
Los Adaes Presidio. In The Archaeology of Traditions: The Research i 8(3): 169-217.
Southeast Before and After Columbus, edited by Timothy Perry, Warren R.
R. Pauketat, pp. 58-76. University of Florida Press, 1999 Landscape Transformation and the Archaeology of
Gainesville. Impact: Social Disruption and State Formation in South-
2001b Social Skins: Orthodoxies and Practices of Dress- ern Africa. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New
ing in the Early Colonial Lower Mississippi Valley. Jour- York.
nal of Social Archaeology 1 (2): 1 72-1 89. Ramenofsky, Ann M.
2003 Refashioning a Body Politic in Colonial Louisiana.1 987 Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European Con-
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1 3(2):23 1 -237. tact. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Lyons, Claire, and John K. Papadopoulos (editors) Redfield, Robert, Ralph Linton, and Melville J. Herskovits
2002 The Archaeology of Colonialism. Getty Research Insti- 1936 Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation. Amer-
tute, Los Angeles. ican Anthropologist 38: 149-152.
Murray, Tim Rogers, Daniel

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
icans and
1 990 Objects of Change: The the Archaeology ofRancho
Archaeology Petaluma.
and Univer-
History
Ankara Contact with Europeans.
sity of ArizonaSmithsonian
Press, Tucson. Institution
Press, Washington, D.C. 2004b Social and Physical Landscapes of Contact. In North
American
Rogers, Daniel, and Samuel M. Archaeology,(editors)
Wilson edited by Timothy Pauketat and
Diana DiPaolo Loren. Blackwell
1993 Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Publishing, London,
Approaches to inPost
contact Change in the Americas.
press. Plenum Press, New York.
Rubertone, Patricia 2005 Indigenous Traces in Colonial Spaces: An Archaeol-
1989 Archaeology, Colonialism, and Unpublished
ogy of Ambiguity. 17th-CenturyMS. Nativ
Simmons, William S.Interpretation. In Con
America: Towards an Alternative
flict in the Archaeology of1988 Culture
Living Theory Traditions,
in Contemporary Ethnohistory.
edited Eth- by
Robert Lay ton, pp. 32-45.nohistory
Unwin 35(1): 1-14.
Hyman, London.
2000 The Historical Archaeology
Singleton, Theresa A. of Native American
1995 Archaeology29:425^446.
Annual Review of Anthropology of Slavery in North America. Annual
2001 Grave Undertakings: An
Review Archaeology
of Anthropology 24:1 19-140. of Roge
1 998 Cultural
Williams and the Narragansett Interaction and
Indians. African American Identity
Smithsonian in
Insti-
tution Press, Washington, Plantation
D.C. Archaeology. In Studies in Culture Contact:
Sahlins, Marshall Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited by
1981 Historical Metaphors James
andG. Mythical
Cusick, pp. 172-1 88. Realities: Struc
Center for Archaeological
ture in the Early History Investigations,
of the Sandwich Occasional Paper No. 25. Southern Illinois
Islands King-
dom. University of Michigan University,
Press, Carbondale.
Ann Arbor.
1985 Islands of History. 200 University of Chicago
1 Slavery and Spatial Dialectics Press
on Cuban Coffee Plan-
Chicago. tations. World Archaeology 33(1):98-114.
Saunders, Rebecca Singleton, Theresa A. (editor)
1 998 Forced Relocation, Power Relations, and Culture Con- 1999 "/, Too, Am America": Archaeological Studies of
tact in the Missions of La Florida. In Studies in Culture African-American Life. University Press of Virginia,
Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, Charlottesville.
edited by James G. Cusick, pp. 402-429. Center for Spicer, Edward S.
Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 25.1 962 Cycles of Conquest: The Impact of Spain, Mexico, and
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. the United States on the Indians of the Southwest,
Scarry, John F. 1533-1960. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
2001 Resistance and Accommodation in ApalacheeStein, Gil
Province. In The Archaeology of Traditions, edited by Tim-2002 Colonies without Colonialism: A Trade Diaspora
othy R. Pauketat, pp. 34-57. University Press of Florida, Model of Fourth Millennium B.C. Mesopotamian Enclaves
Gainesville. in Anatolia. In The Archaeology of Colonialism, edited by
Scarry, John F, and Mintcy D. Maxham Claire Lyons and John K. Papadopoulos, pp. 27-64. Getty
2002 Elite Actors in the Protohistoric: Elite Identities and Research Institute, Los Angeles.
Interaction with Europeans in the Apalachee and Powhatan Stoler, Ann Laura
Chief doms. In Between Contacts and Colonies: Archae- 1989 Rethinking Colonial Categories: European Commu-
ological Perspectives on the Protohistoric Southeast, edited nities and the Boundaries of Rule. Comparative Studies in
by Cameron B. Wesson and Mark A. Rees, pp. 142-169. Society and History 3 1(3): 134-1 61.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Taylor, William B.
Scarry, John F, and Bonnie G. McEwan 1994 Santiago's Horse: Christianity and Colonial Indian
1995 Domestic Architecture in Apalachee Province: Resistance in the Heartland of New Spain. In Violence,
Apalachee and Spanish Residential Styles in the Late Pre- Resistance, and Survival in the Americas: Native Ameri-
historic and Early Historic Period Southeast. American cans and the Legacy of Conquest, edited by William B.
Antiquity 60:482^95. Taylor and Franklin Pease G. Y., pp. 153-189. Smithson-
Schortman, Edward, and Patricia Urban ian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1998 Culture Contact Structure and Process. In Studies in Taylor, William B., and Franklin Pease G. Y. (editors)
Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archae-1 994 Violence, Resistance, and Survival in the Americas:
ology, edited by James G. Cusick, pp. 102-125. Center for Native Americans and the Legacy of Conquest. Smith-
Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 25. sonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Thomas, David Hurst
Schrire, Carmel 2000 Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the
1 995 Digging through Darkness: Chronicles of an Archae- Battle for Native American Identity. Basic Books, New
ologist. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. York.
Silliman, Stephen W. Thomas, David Hurst (editor)
2001a Agency, Practical Politics, and the Archaeology of1989 Columbian Consequences, Vol. 1 : Archaeological and
Culture Contact. Journal of Social Archaeology Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West.
1(2): 184-204. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
200 1 b Theoretical Perspectives on Labor and Colonialism: 1 990 Columbian Consequences, Vol. 2: Archaeological and
Reconsidering the California Missions. Journal of Anthro- Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East.
pological Archaeology 20:379-407. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
2003 Using a Rock in a Hard Place: Native American Lithic 1991 Columbian Consequences, Vol. 3: The Spanish Bor-
Practices in Colonial California. In Stone Tool Traditions derlands in Pan-American Perspective. Smithsonian Insti-
in the Contact Era, edited by Charles Cobb, pp. 127-150. tution Press, Washington, D.C.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Thomas, Nicholas
2004a Lost Laborers in Colonial California: Native Amer- 1 99 1 Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
Colonialism in the Pacific. Harvard University 1982 EuropePress,

and the People without History. University of
Cambridge. California Press, Berkeley.
1994 Colonialism's Culture: Anthropology, Travel, and Wood, Peter H.
Government. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 1994 North America in the Era of Captain Cook: Three
van Dommelen, Peter Glimpses of Indian-European Contact in the Age of the
2002 Ambiguous Matters: Colonialism and Local Identi- American Revolution. In Implicit Understandings:
ties in Punic Sardinia. In The Archaeology of Colonialism, Observing, Reporting, and Reflecting on the Encounters
edited by Claire Lyons and John K. Papadopoulos, pp. between Europeans and Other Peoples in the Early Mod-
121-147. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles. ern Era, edited by Stuart B. Schwartz, pp. 484-501 . Cam-
Voss, Barbara L. bridge University Press, Cambridge.
2002 The Archaeology of El Presidio de San Francisco: Cul- Wylie, Alison
ture Contact, Gender, and Ethnicity in a Spanish-Colonial 1992 Rethinking the Quincentennial: Consequences for
Military Community. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- Past and Present. American Antiquity 57:591-594.
versity of California, Berkeley.
Wagner, Mark J.
1998 Some Think It Impossible to Civilize Them All: Cul- Notes
tural Change and Continuity among the Early Nineteenth-
Century Potawatomi. In Studies in Culture Contact: 1 . A recent redefinition of colonialism offered by Gosden
Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited by attempts to understand that although colonialism in the mod-
James G. Cusick, pp. 430-456. Center for Archaeological ern world is different than anything preceding it, the process
Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 25. Southern Illinois shares with earlier versions in Rome or Uruk the central role
University, Carbondale.
of material culture: "Colonialism is not many things, but just
2003 In All the Solemnity ot Profound Smoking: Tobacco
one. Colonialism is a process by which things shape people,
Smoking and Pipe Manufacture and Use among the
Potawatomi of Illinois. In Stone Tool Traditions in the Con- rather than the reverse" (2004:153). I suspect that this
tact Era, edited by Charles R. Cobb, pp. 109-126. Uni- approach will prove useful for comparative studies of colo-
versity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. nialism, but I do not opt for this broad definition in this arti-
Walthall, John A. (editor) cle. Much of what I discuss as North American colonialism
1991 French Colonial Archaeology: The Illinois Country concerns what Gosden calls terra nullius and "middle
and the Western Great Lakes. University of Illinois Press, ground" colonialisms. Terra nullius has as its characteristi
Urbana.
the "mass death of indigenous inhabitants; technologies
Walthall, John A., and Thomas E. Emerson (editors)
transport, communication, production and militarism
1992 Calumet and Fleur-de-Lys: Archaeology of Indian
and French Contact in the Midcontinent. Smithsonian unusual sophistication; the drive supplied by the capital
Institution Press, Washington, D.C. world system to seek new raw materials and markets, a
Waselkov, Gregory A. which provided a supra-national set of values; ideologie
1993 Historic Creek Indian Responses to European Tradesuch as terra nullius which provided the ideological and leg
and the Rise of Political Factions. In Ethnohistory and
basis for taking over land, plus hardening categories of racism
Archaeology: Approaches to Postcontact Change in thecreating a hierarchy of human beings and allotting differe
Americas, edited by J. Daniel Rogers and Samuel M. Wil-
forms of labour and reward suitable to each, the Christian
son, pp. 123-131. Plenum Press, New York.
church and ideology which offered other sets of global org
Wesson, Cameron B.
nization and the necessity to save the pagans" (Gosde
2002 Prestige Goods, Symbolic Capital, and Social Power
in the Protohistoric Southeast. In Between Contacts and 2004:27).
Colonies: Archaeological Perspectives on the Protohistoric Middle ground colonialism was "created through a mutu
Southeast, edited by Cameron B. Wesson and Mark A. ally beneficial exploration of differences in the form of socia
Rees, pp. 110-125. University of Alabama Press, bility on all sides and the values so produced. While no
Tuscaloosa. beneficial to all the individuals involved, none of the partic
Whelan, Mary K. pating groups was disadvantaged, although the new
1993 Dakota Indian Economics and the Nineteenth-Cen- extended field of social action added a new dimension to
tury Fur Trade. Ethnohistory 40(2): 246-276.
social action which was impossible for anyone to control"
Williamson, Christine
(Gosden 2004:31). Gosden offers the North American fur
2004 Contact Archaeology and the Writing of Aboriginal
trade as an example, where "it was not always the power and
History. In The Archaeology of Contact in Settler Societies,
values of the colonizers that came to dominate. Rather, it is
edited by Tim Murray, pp. 176-199. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge. very common for new cultural mixes to arise out of colonial
Williamson, Christine, and Rodney Harrison middle grounds" (2004:113).
2004 Introduction: "Too Many Captain Cooks"? An 2. Fontana's distinctions are based on the kinds of arti-
Archaeology of Aboriginal Australia after 1788. In After
facts present rather than on any aspects of social or historical
Captain Cook: The Archaeology of the Recent Indigenousprocesses. Archaeologists have adhered to something akin to
Past in Australia, edited by Rodney Harrison and Chris-
Fontana's model, but they tend to have retained only the cat-
tine Williamson, pp. 1-16. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek,
California.
egories of "protohistoric," to refer to sites before full-scale
Wilson, Samuel M. European colonization but with some contact and documen-
1 999 The Emperor 's Giraffe and Other Stories of Cultures tation, and "contact" (a.k.a. "historic"), to refer to times of
in Contact. Westview Press, Boulder. sustained European interaction with Native Americans and
Wolf, Eric R. subsequent extensive written documentation. I find the desig-

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC
74 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 70, No. 1 , 2005]
whaling stations with

nations historic and protohistoric Inupiat laborers
deeply in the Arctic properly for
problematic
part of a "contact
sons that parallel my concerns with era"?contact.
Cassell's (2003) chapter
As would
farsug-
as n
chaeologists are concerned (e.g.,
gest not, as he nevercultural anthropolog
uses the terminology; instead, he speaks
of industrial
students, the public, Native labor within the realm
Americans), of colonialism
these terms and capi-con
talism. My own chapter
to grant history only to Europeans byreveals my growing of
virtue personal diffi-
literacy
culties
their perceived dominance. Thewith terminology
privilegingas I alternate of
between contact and
European
colonial in my discussions
acy ends up turning a periodization for ofclassification
nighteenth-century California
purp
(Silliman 2003).
into a substitute for process, I mean this illustration not
particularly to criticize the
when the w
content orof
carry political weight outside visionspecialist
of Cobb's volume inarchaeological
pulling together solid
lithic studiesterm,
cles. The corresponding sibling that illuminate European-indigenous interac-
prehistory, holds
more problems, as it continues in students'
tions and technological and
persistence and change but,public
rather, to m
bers' eyes to lump Native Americans
underscore how a timely topicwith dinosaurs
can get caught in a web of
mammoths. Even though professional
problematic terminology. archaeologists m
this term to refer to times 4.
without
Some have even documents,
opted to refer grippinglyItofeel that
the study
should probably discardofit
thesecompletely
colonial encounters in southern
(seeAfrica as the
Nassaney
Johnson 2000:7). "archaeology of impact" (Hall 1993; Perry 1999) and hav
3. Cobb's edited book serves as
illustrated, likean example
Schrire, though with of how
different colo
perspectives
thein
nialism can be interpreted nature of colonialism incases
poignant the modern world (Hall
that span 1999).m
ple regions and periods but simultaneously how th
classification of studies under a "contact" rubric draws the
Received July 2, 2004; Revised October 8, 2004; Accepted

overarching theme into confusing territory. For instance, are
October 20, 2004.
late-nighteenth- and early-twentieth-century commercial
Graduate Student Rock Art Research at the

New Millennium
Jennifer KK Huang, Arizona State University and
Elisabeth V. CuIIey, Northern Arizona University, Editors
Presenting the
American Rock Art Research Association
Occasional Paper No, 5
A valuable compilation of exciting new research gleaned
from the standing-room-only graduate student rock art
research sessions at the 2001-2003 SAA annual meetings.
$18.00 paperback
Available at the ARARA booth
at the 70th Annual SAA Meeting

in Salt Lake City March 30- April 3, 2005
and from the Deer Valley Rock Art Center 623,582.8007

14.139.240.11 on Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC

This Content Downloaded From 14.139.240.11 On Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Content Downloaded From 14.139.240.11 On Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:10:50 UTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Culture Contact or Colonialism?

Challenges in the Archaeology of Native North

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40035268

This content downloaded from

of culture contact and colonialism

American Antiquity, 70(1), 2005, pp. 55-74

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

reviewer once questioned me on a manuscript

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

encounter, separate histories

This content downloaded from

explain cross-cultural exchange, is not an

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Catholic Franciscan missions. Maritime indige-

ing into an unwanted focus on colonialism-as-

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

elsewhere around the globe, saw the massive dis-

This content downloaded from

acculturation as a valid framework, forinNative

ural resources market, coupled with indigenous

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

research, required hundreds of

in the realm of colonialism. Despite great advances

This content downloaded from

nial relations of power, labor, economy, and iden-

the colonial worlds that indigenous Communities

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Herskovits, Melville J. 1 996 Contact Archaeology: Shared Histories? Shared Iden-

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Colonialism in the Pacific. Harvard University 1982 EuropePress,

This content downloaded from

whaling stations with

Received July 2, 2004; Revised October 8, 2004; Accepted

Graduate Student Rock Art Research at the

Available at the ARARA booth

at the 70th Annual SAA Meeting

This content downloaded from

You might also like