I don’t wish to appear self-promoting, but I wrote about the issue of race and racism in classification systems in relation to Utah archaeology in my chapter in Margie Purser and Mark Warner’s book Historical Archaeology Through a Western Lens. Utah’s residents (and archaeologists) have created a deep dichotomy between ancient history, natural history, and science, on the one hand, and history on the other. This is a very significant problem for them to fix and it will require sustained critical effort to do so, including engagement with the indigenous and other underrepresented voices.
At the same time, there are also more meaningful reforms needed than just terminology, including institutional investments in research and curation.
I know that some members of the community are trying to fix things and I’m really pleased to learn that these discussions are happening at all.
Best,
Tim
> On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:29 PM, Carol McDavid <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is a valuable effort, and I'm glad we are discussing it. My only offering would be to note that whatever terms used should be understood by diverse publics. Some of the terms being discussed are arguably jargon. Even the ones we have traditionally used (prehistoric and historic) are understood differently by "the public" than they are by professionals -- I often have to explain, when defining "historical archaeology", the distinction between written history and history in a more general sense. So I'm with Jim that the entire concept of "prehistory" poses problems.
>
> Having the voices of our Indigenous colleagues (archaeologists and otherwise) in this conversation would be helpful -- certainly there would be differing opinions from person to person, but I'd love to hear them.
>
> Cheers,
> Carol
>
> *****************************
> Carol McDavid, Ph.D.
> Executive Director, Community Archaeology Research Institute, Inc.
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Rice University
> Co-editor, Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage
> 1638 Branard
> Houston, TX 77006
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim Gibb
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 10:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Protohistory on the Utah site form
>
> Rob,
> Thank you for providing the Silliman and Lightfoot references...I know I was going to drive myself nuts trying to find them this evening.
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Gibb
> Gibb Archaeological Consulting
> Annapolis, MD
> [log in to unmask]
> 410.693.3847
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mann, Robbie <[log in to unmask]>
> To: HISTARCH <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thu, Mar 22, 2018 11:47 am
> Subject: Re: Protohistory on the Utah site form
>
> I agree with Jim. As we continue to decolonize archaeological practice it is important to think carefully about the terms we use to categorize people in time and space. Indigenous, aboriginal, and precolonial have all been put forward as workable substitutes for "prehistoric," though each has their own drawbacks. The terms "protohistoric" and "contact period" are equally troubling and are loaded with colonialist assumptions. Keep us posted on the work of the task force.
>
> Best,
> Rob
>
> Suggested Readings:
>
> Steve Silliman
> 2014 Archaeologies of Survivance and Residence: Reflections on the Historical Archaeology of Indigenous People. In Rethinking Colonial Pasts through Archaeology, edited by Neal Ferris, Rodney Harrison, and Michael Wilcox, pp. 57-75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
> 2010 Crossing, Bridging, and Transgressing Divides in the Study of Native North America. In Across a Great Divide: Continuity and Change in Native North American Societies, A.D. 1400-1900, edited by Laura S. Scheiber and Mark Mitchell, pp. 258-276. Amerind Studies in Archaeology 4. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
> 2005 Culture Contact or Colonialism? Challenges in the Archaeology of Native North America. American Antiquity 70(1):55-74.
>
> Lightfoot, Kent G.
> 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship Between Prehistoric
> and Historic Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2):199-217.
>
> *************************************************
> Rob Mann, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor of Anthropology
> Department of Anthropology
> St. Cloud State University
> 252 Stewart Hall
> 720 4th Avenue South
> St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301
> Phone: 320-308-4181
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim Gibb
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 9:48 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Protohistory on the Utah site form
>
> I don't have a completely satisfactory solution to the problem, but in recognition that indigenous peoples of the Americas have histories, regardless of whether or not we know much about them, I prefer as overlapping categories Aboriginal History and European or EuroAmerican era. My solution at least acknowledges that these groups have histories, hence human agency. Prehistory can imply that there is no history, no agency, and risking ethological, rather than ethnological perspectives. I realize that a fair amount of effort has been invested in the Utah situation, but protohistoric--a term with some history in the field, but not much currency--can be misconstrued as a vaguely transitional period when these peoples came out of the dark and into the light made possible by European writing. I doubt many who identify as Native American will like this concept any more than they like the concept of prehistory. Maybe before trying to resolve the problem of categorizing those aboriginal sites contemporary with EuroAmerican expansion, but no direct contact, we need to rethink the whole concept of prehistory. Given the number of archaeologists who have long identified as prehistorians, this will be contentious, but perhaps necessary to advance our thinking. Full disclosure: I identify as an archaeologist and not as any particular kind.
>
>
>
> Jim Gibb
> Gibb Archaeological Consulting
> Annapolis, MD
> [log in to unmask]
> 410.693.3847
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy Scarlett <[log in to unmask]>
> To: HISTARCH <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thu, Mar 22, 2018 10:00 am
> Subject: Re: Protohistory on the Utah site form
>
> Hannah-
> I’m really glad to hear about this effort. It is a start at breaking down that Prehistory/Natural History vs. history problem in Utah.
> I wonder about the term “Ethnohistoric period.” Given the interplay of oral history, ethnography, archival documents, archaeology, and material culture analysis, I wonder if Ethnohistoric period wouldn’t capture the interdependence of those different research modes for the period?
>
> Colonial era would work also, but it places the emphasis on the spread of colonial power instead of the idea of indigenous history.
>
> Some may not like the baggage of Ethnohistory and studies of ethnicity, however, or the associations with folklore.
>
> I look forward to the discussion!
> Best,
> Tim Scarlett
> Michigan Tech
>
>
>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Speal, Charles S <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Some people out East use the terms pre-Colonial and Colonial to get past this issue. I would agree that Contact Period is preferable to "Proto-historic" as the latter still implies 'just learning to use history'.
>>
>>
>> C. Scott Speal
>> National Register Specialist, Archaeology
>>
>> Office of Environmental Planning
>> Connecticut Department of Transportation
>> 2800 Berlin Turnpike
>> Newington, CT 06131
>> Phone: 860-594-2918
>> Fax: 860-594-3028
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hannah Russell
>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 9:37 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Protohistory on the Utah site form
>>
>> Good Morning HistArch community,
>>
>> Over the past year in Utah, we have been working with a new site form (see link below). One of the new features on the site form is a new site class. The state has added "Protohistoric" to "Prehistoric" and "Historic". For a lot of reasons, this addition is pretty exciting, the state has acknowledged on the site form the false duality of "prehistory"
>> and "history". That's an awesome step towards better inclusivity in the archaeological record, and a more holistic way to talk about the historical
>> experiences of Indigenous peoples! As the site form and manual are
>> written however, the use of the word is incorrect. The manual defines prehistoric as Native American sites prior to 1800, Protohistoric as 1800-1900, and historic as non-native groups after 1800.
>>
>> These time frames, and the use of protohistry can and should be improved on our new form. At the consultants meetings for the last two years, we've been told that there is room to make changes on the form. I've brought this issue up at both of those meetings and have been told that the task force to create and improve the site form haven't found a better alternative word to protohistory.
>>
>> I've been invited to the next site form task force meeting to discuss this issue further, and I'd like to workshop some ideas with the histarch group. Personally, when I write and talk about the early and sustained interactions between Indigenous and Euro-Americans in the archaeological record, I use multiple terms together including protohistory, contact, and historical Indigenous. When talking about this issue with a friend, she suggested contact period as an alternative to protohistory. Does anyone have any other suggestions? Or for that matter suggested reading?
>>
>> https://heritage.utah.gov/history/archaeology-site-form-release
>>
>> Thanks so much for your time,
>>
>> --
>> Hannah Russell, RPA
>> Cottonwood Archaeology, LLC
>> [log in to unmask]
>> (435) 210-0414
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1
|
