Dear HistArch'ers,
With apologies for self-promotion - the recent issue of American Antiquity has two historical archaeology articles (listed below) that may be of interest to list members. If you are interested in the first and you don't have a subscription, email me off-list and I can send an e-print.
--Barb Voss
---------
Voss, B. L. 2015. What's new? Rethinking ethnogenesis in the archaeology of colonialism. American Antiquity 80(4):655-670.
http://saa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/saa/aa/2015/00000080/00000004/art00003
Many archaeological researchers studying colonialism are critiquing theories of cultural change (e.g., hybridity, creolization)
in favor of interpretive models that emphasize cultural persistence and continuity. Ethnogenesis, the emergence of new
cultural identities, has been put forward as a consensus model: what is "new"-the "genesis" in ethnogenesis- is increasingly
interpreted as an authentic remaking of communal identities to foster persistence and survival. This somewhat utopic
emphasis on continuity in ethnogenesis theory broadens the concept of ethnogenesis to the point that its value as a theory
of identity transformation is being lost. Overall, the archaeological emphasis on ethnogenesis as a tactic of resistance
among subaltern communities has led to a general neglect of how ethnic identity practices are deployed in the exercise of
power. The increasing use of bioarchaeological evidence in ethnogenesis research also raises pressing ethical and epistemological issues about the relationship between the body and identity. A more focused and restricted application of ethnogenesis theory is necessary to identify and investigate those situations in which colonialism and its consequences resulted in ruptures and structural transformations of identity practices.
Schneider, T. D. 2015. Placing refuge and the archaeology of indigenous hinterlands in California. American Antiquity 80(4):695-713
http://saa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/saa/aa/2015/00000080/00000004/art00005
Indigenous negotiations of European colonialism in North America are more complex than models of domination and resistance reveal. Indigenous people-acting according to their own historically and culturally specific ways of knowing and being in the world-developed strategies for remaking their identities, material choices, and social configurations to survive one or multiple phases of colonization. Archaeologists are making strides in documenting the contingencies and consequences of these strategies, yet their focus is often skewed toward sites of contact and colonialism (e.g., missions and forts). This article examines places of refuge for native people navigating colonial programs in the San Francisco Bay area of California. I use a resistance-memory-refuge framework to reevaluate resistance to Spanish missions, including the possible reoccupation of landscapes by fugitive or furloughed Indians. Commemorative trips to shellmounds and other refuges support the concept of an indigenous hinterland, or landscapes that, in time, provided contexts for continuity and adjustment among Indian communities making social, material, and economic choices in the wake of missionization. By viewing colonialism from the outside in, this reoriented approach can potentially enhance connections between archaeological and Native American communities.
-----------------------------------------------
Barbara L. Voss, Associate Professor
Department of Anthropology
450 Serra Mall, Bldg. 50, Main Quad
Stanford University
Stanford CA 94305-2034
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
https://web.stanford.edu/dept/anthropology/cgi-bin/web/?q=node/75
https://stanford.academia.edu/BarbaraVoss
|
