Comparative studies in the archaeology of colonialism 9780860543022

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Introduction: Stephen L. Dyson (page 1)
1. Comparative Historical Archaeology and Archaeological Theory (Brad Bartel, page 8)
2. The Scandinavian Colonization of the North Swedish Interior 500-1500 A.D. (Atholl Anderson, page 38)
3. Eskimo-European Contact Archaeology in Labrador, Canada (Susan Kaplan, page 53)
4. Spanish Colonial Archaeology in the Southeast and the Caribbean (Kathleen Deagan, page 77)
5. The Archaeology of Spanish Colonial Sites in California (Robert L. Hoover, page 93)
6. Archaeological Evidence of Spanish Military Policy in Northern New Spain 1700-1821 (Jack S. Williams, page 115)
7. Colonizing the Virginia Frontier: Fort Christanna and Governor Spotswood's Indian Policy (Mary C. Beaudry, page 130)
8. The Archaeology of Colonial Australia (R. Ian Jack, page 153)
9. Studying Russian America: Research Problems in Need of Attention (Timothy Dilliplane, page 177)

Citation preview

Comparative Studies in the Archaeology of Colonialism

edited by

Stephen L. Dyson

1985

BAR International Series 233

B.A.R. 5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 OES, England.

GENERAL EDITORS

| A.R. Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R. Walker, M.A.

BAR -S233,1985:'Comparative Studies in the Archaeology of Colonialism’.

Price £ 10.00 _ post free throughout the world. Payments made in dollars must be calculated at the current rate of exchange and $3.00 added to cover exchange charges. Cheques should be made payable to B.A.R. and sent to the above address.

© The Individual Authors, 1985 ISBN O 86054 302 1 For details of all B.A.R. publications in print please write to the above address. Information on new titles is sent regularly on request, with no obligation to purchase. Volumes are distributed from the publisher. All B.A.R. prices are inclusive of postage by surface mail anywhere in the world.

Printed in Great Britain

ADDRESSES OF CONTRIBUTORS

Professor Atholl Anderson, Department of Anthropology, University of Otago, Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand Professor Brad Bartel, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California 92182 Professor Mary Beaudry, Department of Archaeology, Boston University, 232 Bay State Road, Boston, Massachusetts 02215 Professor Kathleen Deagan, Department of Anthropology, The Florida State Museum, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32601

Dr. Timothy Dilliplane, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks, 619 Warehouse Drive, Suite 210, Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Professor Stephen L. Dyson, Department of Classics, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut 06457

Professor Robert L. Hoover, Social Science Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California 93407

Professor R. lan Jack, Department of History, The University of Sydney, Sydney, N.S.W. 2006, Australia Dr. Susan Kaplan, The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 33rd and Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Dr. Jack S. Williams, 3232 N. Tucson Boulevard #206, Tucson, Arizona 85716

TABLE OF GONTENTS

Page

Addresses of Contributors

Introduction: Stephen L. Dyson ]

|. Brad Bartel 8 Comparative Historical Archaeology and Archaeological Theory

2. Atholl Anderson 38 The Scandinavian Colonisation of the North Swedish Interior 500-1500 A.D.

3. Susan Kaplan 53

Canada 4, Kathleen Deagan 77 Eskimo-European Contact Archaeology in Labrador,

Spanish Colonial Archaeology in the Southeast and the Caribbean |

5. Robert L. Hoover 93 The Archaeology of Spanish Colonial Sites in California

6. Jack S. Williams 115 Archaeological Evidence of Spanish Military Policy in Northern New Spain 1700-182]

7. Mary C. Beaudry 130 Colonizing the Virginia Frontier: Fort Christanna

and Governor Spotswood's Indian Policy

8. R. tan Jack 153 The Archaeology of Colonial Australia

9. Timothy Dilliplane 177 Studying Russian America: Research Problems in Need of Attention

INTRODUCTION

The idea for this volume arose from two sources. The first was my interest as a Roman historian and archaeologist in the

spread of systems of Roman political and economic .control, especially in the western Roman Empire, and the way that control was reflected in the distribution of material goods (Dyson 1985a). Roman archae-

ologists are familiar with the way that the same types of pottery

and lamps show up in the most remote outposts of the Empire and even

beyond the frontier. They serve as a reflection not only of Roman power and influence but also of achanging native life style which required these goods and the social rituals for which they formed a base.

This abundant material culture was also a reflection of a powerful and flexible economy strong in both craft production and marketing skills. The Romans were probably the greatest producers of attractive items for the ordinary man of any society until the eighteenth century (Dyson 1985b). We do not have the written documents that allow us to trace the economic and social structural changes behind these developments, but archaeologists have been skillful in locating the sources of production, dating the items produced and reconstructing something of their distribution patterns (Peacock 1982).

The second inspiration came from my work as an historical archaeologist in-Middletcwn, Connecticut (Dyson 1982). The prosperous middle class houses of the Middletown mercantile class with their abundant English ceramics and glass reminded me of prosperous Roman provincial villas and town houses in France and Spain with

their imported lamps and terra sigillata pottery.

One difference that became obvious quickly to a Roman oriented

historian was that while the Roman historian is ever conscious of the Roman provincial site as being part of that larger social,

political and economic system which we label the Roman Empire, the historical archaeolgists working in North America showed much less

of a consciousness that the society they were studying was part of a world wide process of change that was military and political but was also social, economic and material. While one particular subsystem was receiving a great deal of attention, the larger entity was neglected as was the total picture of world-wide change of which both were a part.

The reasons for this more limited focus in historical archaeology are several. Most historical archaeologists in North America have been trained either as anthropologists or historians with a specialty in a particular region. They are not students of English or Spanish colonial history or archaeology. They have tended to stress the special quality of one part of the New World experience rather than its place in a much larger process. |

Another factor also accounts for this perspective. Roman archaeology as a discipline began in the core country ef Italy during the Renaissance, even though local antiquarian studies of Roman provincial archaeology soon developed in other parts of Europe. What we

in North America call historical archaeology is either just beginning to emerge in the core countries of the modern colonial world system or has not begun at all. The British Post-Medieval archaeologists are the most developed in their interests and techniques and are beginning to produce important studies on the sites, material culture and cultural processes that were behind the spread of British objects and influences to its colonial world and beyond. Similar research in France, Holland, Spain and other continental colonial countries is either much less well developed or non-existent. In studying an historical process that spread out from a core and shaped a number of provincial scenes, this lack of knowledge of developments at the center is a major problem. Another problem is the lack of comparative work between the provincial areas themselves. ‘In the former Roman provinces, archaeology as a discipline developed in a number of areas at about the same time. While these national and local traditions of archaeology have evolved at different paces and today produce models of differing

sophistication, still it is possible through archaeology to compare

the process of Romanization in Britain, Spain and Germany and high-

light both similarities and differences. |

This is not the case with the historical archaeologists. During the period of the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries, European colonial influences spread into virtually every part of the globe. Yet inmost of these areas, the post contact periods have seen little archaeological attention and often what little has been done has received only local oi regional attention. Historical archae-

ology in North America has been most abundant and the North Ameri-

cans can be considered the founders of the discipline of historical archaeology, yet even here one sometimes finds a certain parochialism with Spanish and Anglo oriented historical archaeologists having limited contact and even Spanish colonial archaeologists working in the west and southeast having less than optimum communication.

The time seems ripe to break out of this parochialism and develop a discipline of comparative colonial archaeology. Historians such as Immanuel Wallerstein and Ferrdinand Braudel (Wallerstein 1980, Braudel 1984) have stressed the concept that there emerged in the post medieval world a new world system that involved both Europe and

areas of America, Asia and Oceania in a complex military, social, economic and commercial relationship. This spread of European political, social and economic influence and the emergence of world interconnection was by the late seventeenth and eighteenth century accompanied by changes in production systems that led Europe and especially England to produce increased quantities of material goods that could be spread along these networks,

The increase in the quantity and types of material goods is of key importance here. The industrial and consumer revolution which was centered in England made a greater variety of goods available on the world market than at any time since the collapse of Rome. These are actively marketed by merchants at all levels of society 2

of society (McKendrick, Brewer, Plumb.1982). Many of these goods werein rela-

tively permanent materials such as ceramics and glass which became part of the archaeological record and provide complementary documents

to allow the archaeologists as well as the historians to study this

colonial process.

lt was to encourage this type of global thinking about archaeology and the colonial process and to help break down localism that this volume was conceived. The editor wanted to bring together papers by a variety of scholars working on the subject of western colonialism. Emphasis would be on the various processes of post medieval colonialism, but some effort would also be made to consider those processes as they existed in the medieval and even the classical world. The decision was made to include just the west, even though the archaeology of Islamic and Chinese colonialism would have

provided very interesting comparisons. These latter fields are very complex and deserve collected studies in their own right. Invitations were sent out to scholars working tn virtually every area of western colonial archaeology. Since these papers had to be something that scholars were willing to prepare for this special volume, we had to depend on the special interest of the contributors. These are not papers produced for a special meeting. Since several of the scholars were working in subject areas relatively unknown to archaeologists outside of their region, |! asked that the

papers be as synthetic as possible. In the end | was pleased by the range of papers that we obtained. Several significant areas are, however, missing due either to the lack of research in the field or, as in the case of the historical archaeology of northern Ireland and

Greenland, from the press of work which did not allow archaeologists

working there to contribute. The editor hopes, however, that this volume will stimulate other similar collections and ultimately an international meeting in which historical archaeologists working wor|dwide can assemble to discuss problems of mutual interest and concern.

One of the tasks of an editor is to provide a precis of the

volume and a few comments on each of the papers. | will not attempt to summarize each of the papers, but rather will state briefly what | see as the significance of each for the volume in hand. Both chronologically and in terms of theoretical concerns, Professor Brad Bartel's paper quite rightly opens the volume. As an anthropologist he attempts to place the process of colonialism in as wide as possible a context viewing it from both the side of the dominant power and those who were dominated. As an archaeologist he reminds us of the fact that most of the people affected by colonialsm and imperialism

were illiterate or only partly literate and that the changes brought about in their lives by the colonial process can only be studied with any degree of objectivity through the process of material culture studies, the most important subdivision of which is archaeology. With his special interest in the western Roman provinces, Professor Bartel connects the modern colonial cycle with the first really comprehensive western colonial experience. The striking parallels between Roman and post Roman colonialism in certain areas encourages

social scientists to find similar patterns in complex human behavior in different areas and periods. The essay by Professor Atholl Anderson provides a good transi3

tion both in time period and in the type of colonization. The end of

the Roman Empire had seen what might be called reverse colonization with groups outside of the Roman Empire crossing the imperial borders,

raiding but also settling within the territory of the Old Empire.

This process of complex, internal colonization continued throughout the Middle Ages. One of the most imporant developments involved the colonization by core European groups of the border areas to the north and east of Europe. The most dramatic example of this expansion was the push of first Germans and then Russians to the east which eventually carried Russian power to Siberia and the Pacific Ocean. Professor Anderson discusses a more limited example of this process in Scandinavia. He shows that a model of peasant expansion into new relatively undeveloped agriculture land is too simple and that such fringe areas provided the core European area with a complex variety of resources. He also shows that the process of expansion into such marginal areas was a prolonged one involving a number of cycles of ebb and flow. Archaeologists and historians here as elsewhere have to work closely together to illuminate theee often poorly documented episodes in European expansion. Finally, Professor Ander-

son's paper reminds us of the fact that by the time the so-called

Age of Discovery began, the Europeans were experienced colonialists.

The paper by Dr. Susan Kaplan takes us into two other aspects

of the colonial process. The first is the long history of marine resource exploitation and trading that preceded the actual coloniza-

tion of North America. In some areas such as New England, this represented a ''softening process'! which not only accustomed the indigenous population to the Europeans, but through the spread of disease

decimated the natives and disrupted their social structure.

Such immediate collapse was not the fate of all native societies in North America, especially those located outside areas where European settlement was feasible. The natives whose social structure remained intact often underwent complex social and economic changes

as they adjusted to the European presence around and within their

territory. Historians generally tend to write history from the

colonists' view of the frontier and have often ignored the complex process of change which took place within the native society on the other side of the frontier. Dr. Kaplan shows how archaeology and ethno-history can be combined to trace changes in the Neo-Eskimo groups in Labrador from the sixteenth-nineteenth centuries which are

reflected not only in the portable material culture but also in

such basic forms as house types and how these changes reflected forces operating inside and outside the eskimo society.

The Spanish established the first great colonial system in

the New World. The archaeology of much of that system remains poorly

studied. However, the research of archaeologists working in Florida, the Caribbean and in the United States' Southwest and California have begun to change that situation. Professor Deagan provides an overview of one of the oldest and most complicated of the HispanoAmerican cultural areas, that of Florida and the Caribbean. Two

special points in the paper require emphasis. The first is that the

Hispanic colonial enterprise was a complicated movement that changed

the shape of the Western world. The second is that the Spanish were more successful than the English in integrating the natives into k

their system. Archaeology reminds us of the fact that while native

cultures in Florida and the Caribbean may have disappeared from the

historical record this was due in part to the fact that they became part of the Spanish American society. The high percentage of indigenous ceramics on early Hispanic American sites, especially in Florida provide vivid testimony of this development. The excavations in Florida also provide a vivid indication of the growing power of the English economic machine and its ability to produce material goods for the world market. The Spanish may have gained political control of Florida for a brief period after the American Revolution, but the area remained strongly under the influence of British economic power.

| If towns have tended to be the focus of the archaeology in

the Spanish Caribbean, missions and forts have drawn the principal attention of archaeologists working on Spanish sites in California and the Southwest. Professor Robert Hoover in his review of the past and current state of mission archaeology in California reminds us of the importance that tHe mission sites have, not only for understanding the development of ecclesiastical architecture in the New World, but also for reconstructing the acculturation processes that were going on in the areas under the control of the missions. Their major role was to gather the Indians around a central place

and to turn them into Christians practising a basically agricultural

economy. The archaeology of the missions provides important, complex information on the ways in which these natives did and did not become

what the Spanish wanted them to be. The article also forcefully reminds us of the problems in preserving and recovering one of the earliest colonial archaeological records in the United States in one

of its fastest growing areas. ,

As a student of the Roman frontier, | have been made acutely

aware of the role of the military on the frontier, not only as a

power factor but also a complex social and economic institution which had a profound effect on life within and beyond the frontier region. The same situation has existed on more recent colonial frontiers. Using this perspective, Dr. Jack Williams seeks to illuminate the complex history of the Spanish northern frontier. He shows how this complex interaction of remote European planning, inadequate resources and the specific frontier conditions shaped the Spanish military institutions in very particular local ways which affected not only

military tactics and strategy but also the way that the soldiers lived on the frontier.

With the paper by Mary Beaudry, the focus on the frontier shifts from New Spain to New England and the problems that the

governors of colonial Virginia had in developing an Indian policy which would provide better protection for indigenous groups on the

colonial frontier and control both the attacks of the settlers and the unscrupulous actions of those engaged in frontier trade. The special concern of her paper is the frontier policy of Alexander Spotswood, governor of Virginia, which led to the foundation of Fort Christanna and the.way that excavations have illuminated the

structures of the fort and the life of the small group that lived

there. The ongoing research at Fort Christanna allows an increas ing~ ly detailed understanding of the way that a complex, shifting frontier policy affected the settlement pattern and lifeways of one p)

small segment of the Virginia frontier. One of the major concerns of this volume was to show not only how different colonial systems functioned at various times and places, but also the way that the same colonial system developed in

very different areas. For this purpose, the essay of Professor R. lan Jack on Australia is of special importance. He provides a very detailed overview of the active program of historical archaeological research in Australia and the way that this has illuminated the material culture side of life in Australia through the nineteenth century. The developments in Australia should provide a model for historical archaeology in other British colonial areas and allow us to put the North American experience in a larger colonial context.

Focus on the British, French and Spanish colonial systems can lead to a neglect of a fourth major example of frontier expansion which is that of Russia. Moving steadily eastward, Russian colonists ultimately reached the northwestern shores of North America where they established a presence which lasted well into the nineteenth century. Timothy Dilliplane lays special stress on the neglect of this aspect of the North American colonial experience and lays out an agenda of issues to be addressed as the presently very limited number of investigations in Russian American sites increases.

In concluding, the editor of these papers can only repeat the point that what is assembled here is only a small fragment of what is being done and can be done in the field. The cursory examination of a nineteenth century map showing European colonial dominion shows

how many areas are not represented in this volume. Hopefully, the papers will demonstrate the value of interdisciplinary interaction. They will also, hopefully, remind archaeologists and historians of the degree to which the colonial process was expressed in material terms and how,for many elements of that process, especially aspects centering on those groups that were colonized, the archeological

record is often the major or only source. A full understanding of the colonial process in all-its aspects can thus only come from a full collaboration between the archaeologist and the historian. BIBLIOGRAPHY ©

Braudel, F., 1981-84, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century, Collins, London.

Dyson, S. L., 1982, ''Material Cutlure, Social Structure and Changing Cultural Values: The Ceramics of Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Middletown, Connecticut,'' Archaeology of Urban America,

Roy S. Dickens, Jr., ed., Academic Press, New York, pp. 361-3 0.

--- 1985a, The Creation of the Roman Frontier, Princeton University Press, Princeton. --- 1985b, ''The Villas of Buccino and the Consumer Model of Roman Rural Development,'! Papers of the Third Conference of Italian Archaeology - Cambridge, TOBG. Cc. Malone and §$. Stoddart, eds.,

British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 6

McKendrick, N., J. Brewer, J. H. Plumb, 1982, The Birth of a Consumer Society, Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Peacock, D. P. S., 1982, Pottery in the Roman World, Longman, New York. Wallerstein, |. M., 1974, 1980, The Modern World System, Academic Press, New York.

-]-

1. COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORY

Brad Bartel ABSTRACT

The data base for historical archaeology could be used more ef fectively when analyzed in terms of variable situations involving

policies of social domination. Definitions and processes related to

colonialism, imperialism and cultural responses by indigenous popular~ tions are discussed utilizing historic and ethnographic examples. The potential for pattern recognition analysis aiding comparative

archaeological interpretation is also included. Introduction

The Romans held portions of the country, not entire regions but such districts as happened to have been

subdued...the soldiers wintered there, and cities

were being founded. Gradually the barbarians [Ger-

mans] adapted themselves to Roman ways, getting ac~ customed to holding markets, and assembling peace-

fully. But they had not forgotten their ancestral ways, their inborn nature, their old proud way of

life. ...As long as they were unlearning their

ancient customs gradually...they did not protest against these changes in their mode of life. But

when Quinctillius Varus was appointed governor...

and attempted to take these people in hand, striving

| to change them, ...their patience was exhausted [Cassius Dio 56, 39-41).

Within one insightful observation, this Roman author of the 2nd century A.D. has essentially discussed the usual pattern of push-pull social relationships entailed within colonialism and native response. Often historians (e.g. Duby 1974) and archaeologists (e.g. Wells 1972) assume that the dominating power holds securely all regions obtained through warfare or treaty, with total acculturation by the indigenous populations to the dominating value systems. For example, Millar (1967: 9-10), in speaking of the Roman Empire states by 200 A.D. a

social uniformity in language and material culture existed. He goes on to say that: _. outside of Italy and Greece, the society and culture of all areas of the Empire was formed by the importation, by conquest, emigration or assimilation of a dominant alien culture, and its imposition on, or fusion with, the pre-existing native culture [1967: 9-10]. Clearly such simplistic statements are not warranted when one

understands complexity of human behavior with regard to social control situations known from historical, archaeological or ethnographic data.

Our purpose is to discuss the variation within the social pro-8-

cess of colonial-imperial activity, uSing examples from many different ecological, temporal and social situations in order to show how archaeologists can develop research strategies to account for singular fieldwork examples, and to integrate all within a probablistic model of dominance and response. Finally, the archaeological use of pattern recognition will be discussed with examples from British and Roman forms of control. This chapter is not meant to exhaust all examples of this form of behavior, but to acquaint the archaeologist with types of social control which are most archaeologically visible. Operationalizing Colonialism and Imperialism

The social science literature discussing power and dominance is

quite varied. Often, colonialism and imperialism are used as interchangeable terms, or not explicitly defined. For example, Whittaker (1978: 63) states that a mark of imperialism includes such traits as: 1}. direct territorial conquest and annexation; 2. provincial administration,

3. levying of tribute, 4. land exploitation, 5. unequal alliances,

6. trade monopolies. Others (e.g., Horvath 1972) would suggest that 1, 2, and 4 above would be primary defining characteristics of colonialism, while in a recent

volume on the subject (Garnsey & Whittaker 1978), none of the contri-

butors could agree on definitions of either term. Garnsey and Whittaker (1978: 1) see imperialism as any oppressive or abusive rule, Finley (1978) views it as mostly economic exploitation, while Thornton (1965: 2) views it as an image of dominance.

For all social science disciplines the importance of explicit and programmatic definitions of these terms is a critical first step in organizing research and generating theory. There have been over 4,000 years of numerous state societies controlling other groups. Under what conditions (e.g., ecological, social) does such a state

society instigate dominance? Does a colonial-imperial power control a band-level society different from a chiefdom group? These and related hypotheses asked of the data are needed to be placed in some model which enables prediction or postdiction. Previous social scientists have infrequently examined sufficient numbers of colonial case

studies, or when examining social power have not even given cons ideration to the long-term process of how dominance and native response are displayed.

After a full century examining colonialism and imperialism, the anthropologist has yet to develop any comprehensive theory. Recent ethnological (e.g., M. G. Smith 1974; Burling 1974; Fogelson and Adams 1977) and archaeological studies (e.g., Trigger 1974; Friedman and Rowlands 1977) devoted to political relations have sidestepped a synthetic treatment of the colonial question. There are so many different definitions of colonialism and imperialism as to make the terms almost useless. For example, to

Thornton (1965: 1977), colonialism is imperialism ‘seen from below’ ;

‘that being by the natives of their plight, while imperialism is an -9-

ethos of governance; a form of national aggressiveness (1965:4).

Differential emic perspectives always come into play, and are clearly portrayed by Soviet and United States dictionary definitions. Kolonizatsiya [colonialism] is defined in Soviet dictionaries as ''the seizure of a country...accompanied by the subjection, brutal exploitation and sometimes annihilation of the local population.'' Webster's definition is ''the system in which a country maintains foreign colonies for their economic exploitation.'' The Soviet emphasis on forceful and all-encompassing exploitation laid down in Marxist theory and reconsidered by Lenin (1939) differs in degree and kind from the inherent technical problem of economic exploitation used by the United

States or Britain. Finally, some powers, like the Egyptians, did not have a specific linguistic term for imperialism or colonialism (Kemp 1978).

From an etic perspective, what we are dealing with is some form of domination and control by representatives of a state society over another people and territory. As will be made clear through various examples, the form of domination usually is military, economic or ideological, while the representatives may be direct political or military staff of the dominating state, or, in many 18th and 19th century examples, gquasi-formal representatives (i.e., charted companies)

(Sutherland 1952). Some colonies have even been privately owned (e.g., King Leopold's Congo) (Slade 1962). It would be a mistake to believe that almost all colonial or imperial ventures were for economic ex-

ploitation and resulted in profit for the power. Only a very few

colonies have been profit makers (e.g., Congo for Belgium, Indonesia for the Dutch). The vast majority of colonies never were economical ly

profitable, but gave powers political leverage in international dealings with other empire-building nations. There is no doubt that the very process of colonial and imperial control has had a major social effect upon indigenous populations throughout the world, and indirectly on the material culture composing

the archaeological record. For example, at the peak of the British

Empire (1933), approximately 25% of the world's population (502 mil-

lion) and 23.85% of total land surface (12.2 million square miles) were controlled by this single power; a process which took 300 years (Fieldhouse 1967: 222). Such control must have had a dramatic effect upon the future archaeological record of societies worldwide. These statistics take into account only one of many European powers con-

trolling populations all across the globe at that time.

Adding to the consequences for archaeology has been the historical layering effect of when more than one power controls the same territory and societies successively; such as the Dutch and then British control of South Africa (Thompson 1960), or the French then British control over Egypt. Each power will bring its own stamp of

ethnicity, policy and rationale for existing on foreign soil. Some areas of the world, such as North Africa, have been under a multitude of colonial powers (e.g., Roman, French, British) for over 2,000 years.

Along with this problem of layered temporal colonial control, the archaeologist must also be aware of spatial limits on control which are related to diplomatic agreement rather than physical boundaries. It is sometimes assumed by the archaeologist that control wil] -10-

have a high correlation with natural boundaries of a region (e.g., a whole island, large river corridor). There are numerous examples where control is divided artificially between two or more powers with little regard for physical boundaries. A good example is the split of Borneo by the Dutch and British during the 19th century (Vandenbosch 1944). Archaeological sampling strategies would have to be structured accordingly to take into account such possibilities, since greatly different strategies of control and kinds of native response may be taking place within each territory. The archaeological data base remains crucial -to an understanding and explanation of colonial and imperial control. Almost all historical colonial situations have been examined solely from written documents without archaeological data. Wells! (1972) analysis is an exception, but his use of Roman and Germanic archaeological data is used only for confirmation of chronology, spatial location and movement of legions; not the understanding of the social processes which occur when societies come into contact and conflict.

The historical material must be supplemented by archaeology due to inherent bias by authors, or misleading statements about exactly which ethnic group is being controlled. For example, it is unclear from Julius Caesar's Commentaries whether Germanic or Celtic

groups existed on a given portion of the Rhine (Wells 1972: 30).

Aside from the archaeological record being used as independent confirmation of information derived from ethnographic accounts (e.g.,

Tacitus! Germania) or inscription, it acts to test hypotheses about the native society's responses to colonial or imperial domination. Most of the groups which have been controlled are illiterate, and the

only balanced research strategy to examine colonialism and imperialism must involve archaeology. My own research concerning Roman strategies of control in the provinces of Pannonia and Upper Moesia must, of necessity, include a great deal of archaeology owing to 1) an ab-

sence of native |llyrian-speaking literacy, and 2) relatively little

textual information or inscriptions when compared to other parts of the Roman Empire. Finally, it seems as if we are wasting over 4,000 years of material culture data base for making comparisons among various Situations of control, and ultimately firmer predictive power if we do not use archaeology.

Figure | presents a probablistic matrix model of the strategies devised by controlling powers. As will be discussed in a later portion, the figure represents the most likely situations which may have occurred historically and ethnographically. The major distinctions presented here are operationalizing colonialism and imperialism as control through the presence or absence of settlers from the dominating group respectfully, and their use of three strategies (i.e., eradication / resettlement, acculturation, social equilibrium). The combination of a given strategy with a form of control will result in a specific outcome; each with different consequences for the

archaeological record. It is felt that if archaeologists center

their hypothesis testing and fieldwork techniques around this matrix, more productive theory building will result. This matrix model was first devised by Horvath (1972) to examine ethnographic examples of control. Here it is adapted with modification for both ethnographic and archaeological consideration.

-||-

Each of the six matrix outcomes may or may not be the exclusive

control adopted by a nation. It is rare that a controlling power utilizes one such policy for a given society, ecology, or for the entire extent of their empire. Often, many of the solutions are used together or sequentially for maximum populational control and exploi-

tation. Spain in the Americas and Russia in Central Asia both had to conquer and control large populations comprising a multitude of ethnic groups. A flexible approach utilizing combinations of colonial equilibrium and imperial resettlement was successfully undertaken. The archaeologist should expect a combined controlling approach in all situations where there is social and/or ecological variation.

Two other considerations need to be discussed. First, in order

to understand the extent to which a given colonial force impacts upon a native society, the indigenous population must be examined by the

archaeologist as to pre-contact adaptation (technological, social, ideological), during control, and after control has ceased. Therefore, the archaeology of colonialism must of necessity include a large temporal span for any given situation.

Secondly, the archaeologist must be sure of the identity of the ethnic groups under control. The detection of ethnic identity from the archaeological record is just being developed (e.g., Hodder, 1977, 1978, 1979), since much of the social theory from which it is derived is recent (i.e. Barth 1969). Some control situations are extremely complicated, like the identification of lllyrian, Dacian, Thracian and Celtic groups along the Danube corridor under Roman rule (Bartel

1980). Material signs of self-identification (e.g., dress, jewelry,

food preparation) and mechanisms of boundary maintenance must be ex-

amined so that one can coordinate written data with the archaeological.

Throughout the following sections of this chapter, various historical and ethnographic examples are offered for each of the six

outcomes of the matrix, along with some comments about native re-

sponses to these methods of control. Archaeological expectations for hypothesis-testing relative to each outcome are also presented.

Social Perspectives on Controlling and Being Controlled Primary to an overall] understanding of colonialism and imperi-

alism, one has to understand the original intent of the society want-

ing to control others. The historical record is striking in similarity of emic perspective for societies.

Intent seems often to be associated with the concept of 'mantfest destiny' regardless of whether it is Rome under Augustus, various 19th century European powers in Asia and Africa, or fledgling United States in Texas and California. Much of it has a racist overtone; Augustus seeing expansion as a divine mission, Caesar's Commentaries or Cicero's speeches viewing Roman expansion bringing glory, territorial security and: economic advantages (Brunt 1978: 161), Pliny

the Elder suggesting the Romans' ability to conquer all those around them is due to greater piety (Balsdon 1979: 2), or British paternal-

ism of caring for those societies different in social institutions,

usually smaller in population and less technologically equipped. -12-

Along with philosophy of original intent for control, one must look at the dominating group's policy of control. Here there is a great deal more variation. The French fall at one extreme, having developed a conscious policy of assimilation for natives (at least those which were urban-living) (Deschamps 1953). Colonies which were

classified as being incorporated, such as the Antilles, had 1002 French citizenship (Roberts 1929). In other areas, such as parts of

North and West Africa, only those who were urban or French enclavedwellers became citizens, while rural populace remained unacculturated and had no legal rights as French (Fieldhouse 1967: 306-307).

Colonial powers such as the Dutch and British did not want

full or even majority assimilation by natives to their values. A minority of British colonies comprised full legal rights (i.e., dominion status) with the vast majority of natives in other areas classified as ‘protected persons! with minimal legal status and no concerted effort to assimilate. Whereas the French system fostered the highest degree of acculturation by the native upper classes (urban dwellers), the more setective British system resulted in highest degree of acculturation by indigenous middleclass who com-

prised civil service and military positions (especially in India).

Although much of our understanding of dominating rationale comes from the last 300 years of colonial history, we do have some written documentation from earlier periods. Much of this data comes from Roman sources.

The Roman Indo-European heritage and legal system fostered the concept of family household members and servants being exploited by the male household head. On a macro-level of governmental policy, provinces were treated in a similar fashion-~dominated by Romans

but entitled to just treatment, even though natives were not considered equal. Romans believed that domination of people and territory brought about asphaleia--security against external attack for natives and administrators. However, it seems as if this concern was really for those who lived in cities (Nutton 1978: 210-211). In any case, Roman policy amounts to an early version of ‘white man's burden’.

The upper-class Romans tended to hold natives in contempt. For example, Velleius thought that Germans only had voices and limbs in common with humans, while Cicero labelled various Celtic and North African societies as savage or barbaric (Garnsey 1978: 252). As important for a complete understanding of power problems is any information concerning what controlled populations believed

about their plight. Since most dominated groups were illiterate

and authors were not interested in native world view, we have very

little data about this subject.

The Jews saw their conquest by the Romans as punishment for

Biblical misconduct (de Lange 1978: 258). For the most part, the Jews were passively resolved to their situation, but saw themselves as superior to those who conquered them. Romans were perceived as great sinners. The Greeks also held the Romans in contempt, and saw themselves

| -13-

as superior. This was due to a longer tradition of scholarship

(Crawford 1978). Many Greeks rejected Roman citizenship; either

individually or collectively as a city. Acculturation rates remained low. This historical information has been confirmed by archaeological excavation of Greek cities in Sicily (Blake 1947: 228) where architectural styles remained the same through time. Upper-class Romans also believed the Greeks intellectually superior. Romans in Italy had a high rate of Greek language use and Greek material culture preserved. Here we have a rare case of selective reverse acculturation. Looking at ancient or modern examples of domination we may be

able to understand various emic orientations to controlling and being controlled. The most important question for the archaeologist is whether the various emic rationales are as important as etic examination of social control processes per se. Some historians have rejected any synthetic analysis of colonialism-imperitalism because of the lack of written records from the side of the controlled population, or that we have only the emic perception of the controlling

elite (e.g. Thornton 1965). In a sense this criticism has merit. However, the historian or political scientist forgets that the archaeological record is a source of testing for variables forming the structure of dominance situation. Although much of the emic per-

spective is lost in archaeology, the patterning material culture allows explanation for both why and how a society or region was controlled.

Eradication and Resettlement | Although not a common strategy, owing to resulting social repercussions fostered by its use, eradication and resettlement have been used as an initial step within the entire process of social domination. Sometimes it has been used when certain natural resources are found to be important or after establishment of control as a reminder of continued force. For example, in 55 B.C. Julius

Caesar massacred a German tribe which crossed the Rhine because he felt they would combine with disloyal Celtic groups then under Roman

control (Brunt 1978: 174). Eradication may be a slower process than single examples of warfare. The Tasmanian eradication (Calder 1874; Plomley 1969) is one such example. Archaeologically, eradication

through battle leaves relatively little trace, except for fortuitous mass burial, settlement burning or battlefield artifacts. Resettlement is a more frequent solution, being less costly in life and time. Resettlement occurs frequently when plural situations exist in a given region with potential interethnic conflict, or when a region becomes ecologically important. For example, in 60 A.D. the Roman legate Tiberius Plautius Sivanus Aelianus relocated ap-

proximately 100,000 people of Sarmatian heritage away from the Danube

southwards, thus allowing the traditionally Danubian ||lyrian, Dacian and Thracian peoples to resettle within the vacated zone (Millar 1967: 271). Julius Caesar ordered the Helvetii to return to their previously held territory in order to rebuild settlements and return to agricultural pursuits (Wells 1972: 35).

Such resettlement policies, sometimes encompassing hundreds of -|]4-

thousands of people of diverse ethnic membership, have great implications for the archaeological record. Any time a society, or a number of ethnic groups are relocated, they will come into contact with prev'ously unknown societies, thus touching off new networks of social and economic communication which will alter patterns of material culture

distribution (through trade, intermarriage, ecological adaptation). Policies of colonial eradication or resettlement will occur

One. |

when settlements of people from the dominating power now replace those

where native populations once lived. These new colonial settlements exist in the region for economic exploitation or territorial boundary

cortrol. In these instances one will have a sudden artifactual rep'ecement of an entirely new culture stratified above the traditional

Imperial policies of eradication or resettlement will leave a region totally devoid of human settlement. The archaeological record will appear as an empty cell, with what was seemingly the 'death' of the society which existed in the location. In any case, archaeological examination of movement or slaughter

o* numan populations is a relatively difficult task.

Large-scale migrations of groups is often archaeologically invistbie (Crossland and Birchall 1973). There have been notable histor.cally documented mass migrations (e.g. Slavic migrations of the 6th century A.D.) which have left almost no material trace. Migra-

tiaens which do not have a specific geographic goal may have the archaeo ocical appearance of random-walk, and only through appropriate simulation modelling will we have an opportunity to position displaced groups.

Policies of Acculturation By acculturation we mean the change of values brought about by

axposure to, and acceptance of, new customs and traditions. It does not matter whether this change is voluntary or forced, as long as it leads to social change. The social anthropologist most often views this change as individual choice rather than group decision. Import~ ant to consider in cases of colonialism is whether, as in the case of France, active acculturation of natives is part of of ficial policy and philosophy, and whether the indigenous societies, owing to their own social institutions are sufficiently flexible to allow for such change.

The use of the term acculturation with our matrix model is not meant to méan total acculturation to the values of the dominating group. There have not been any such historically or ethnographically Known cases. Rather it is meant to mean a majority of natives crosscutting all social classes or descent groups being transformed through them. Acculturation of a society will take a long time and usually occurs first with the indigenous upper or middle classes with a

trickling effect into other part of the society. As Fallers (1965)

and others have stressed, the impositions of any colonial administration will still leave some form of traditional leadership and decision making at the kinship level. Thus one might expect in situations of -15-

colonial acculturation to have a change in technology and economic systems (occupations, production, consumption), with less change in ideology and kinship.

By cases of imperialistic acculturation we mean transformations of only economic sectors of native life. When colonizing settlement and social interaction between native and colonizer is even more restricted, we view that as an equilibrium situation (see below).

Often a dominating society utilized a flexible approach incorporating aspects of colonial and imperial acculturation. One of the

best examples comes from colonial policy by various powers in handling regions of North Africa. Examination of principal North African powers (Roman, French, Italian, Spanish) shows remarkable similarity in terms of the philosophy of acculturation used to control very simi-~

lar indigenous societies. Although never analyzed in detail, one feels that the similarity of control policy for North Africa is pri-

marily due to ecological variables, such as Mediterranean coastline,

spatial location of urban sites, natural resource location, and inland pastoral adaptation with low population density.

Roman colonization brought about legion movements into the area and large-scale native resettlement programs with Roman take-

over of the best agricultural land. Northern (coastal) land was appropriated on a massive scale, and Roman colonizers granted large

plots (120 acres/colonizer) for farming and grazing. Later, as common practice, retired legionnaires and acculturated provincials were granted plots (Garnsey 1978: 224). Whole tribes with a high degree of acculturation were granted land tracts (Garnsey 1978). Colonial control of coastal cities by all powers has been close to total in North Africa. Within these settlements, accu] turation rates, especially among native elite groups have been especially

high. Neighboring towns and villages, strongly controlled economic~

ally and socially by these principal cities, also had high rates of acculturation. This colonial acculturation policy for coastal North Africa

was combined with imperial forms of acculturation in more rural sec-

tions of central and southern zones. Prior to any colonial power existing in North Africa, the periodic market was an important focus for economic redistribution, integration and the dissemination of social information. More recently, the suq continues this trend. All the colonizing powers in North Africa recognized the social and economic power of the periodic market. Although allowing it to

continue, they altered the locations and conditions of existence to suit their governance.

The pre-colonial market was held in a given location over 1218 days (solar schedule). This schedule was adjusted slightly so as to coincide with the Roman lunar pattern of every 14 days (1/2 lunar month) (Shaw 1979: 97). -More recent colonial administrative powers in North Africa essentially continued the 14 day schedule. The location of many markets remained the same after colonial

rule. Such periodic markets are consciously placed in locations near

| -16-

good water supply, at crossroads of ‘trading caravans, and neutral bor-

ders between tribal territorial holdings.

The traditional market served the colonial power economically

as a location for finding seasonal labor for harvesting, as tax collection points, and as propaganda stations for receiving and transmitting sensitive information. Owing to fears of large assembly

leading to rebellion, there always existed some minimal colonial presence at a periodic marketplace. The Spanish policy in parts of the New World also rearticulated the traditional market system in order to aid in control and increase degree of assimilation (e.g., C. Smith 1976; Bromley 1976).

Other Roman ruling situations offer good examples of largescale acculturation. The indigenous upper classes within the province of Spanish Baetica abandoned their traditional language, dress and total assemblage of ethnic identification in favor of Roman lifestyle and legal citizenship, while much of northern and western Spain re-

tained traditional Ibero-Celtic lifestyle and material culture. The

difference in acculturation is due primarily to southern Spain (Baetica) having longer Roman rule and containing a clustering of vital metallurgical resources (Millar 1967: 156).

Tactitus' account of his father-in-law Agricola's policy as governor of Britain is an example of forced acculturation of the native elite to Roman values. A similar situation seems to have existed in Germany, where archaeological evidence from the cemetery

site of Bad Nauheim has upper class native burial with typically

Augusta-Roman ceramics (Wells 1972: 233).

The thrust for policies of colonial acculturation may initially take religious and ideological tracts. For example, the first-

line British colonialism into China and Japan was via Christian missionary work (Greenberg 1951). The multitude of other Indo-European societies controlled by Romans were relatively easy to acculturate (compared with non-Indo European) because of interpretatio Romana; namely the equation of native deities with Roman ones (Nock 1972: 752). The deities worshipped by such Indo-European groups as Celts or Illyrians were comparable to the Roman ones because of a 5,000 year shared heritage. Aside from conscious policy allowing for high rates of acculturation, certain ecological factors may come into play and foster such a cultural change. Recent colonial powers have been maritime controlling empires. The only recent exception to this is the 19th century Russian colonization of adjacent land masses (Central Asia). Nations such as Portugal, Spain and France controlled island group-

ings distant and small in territory. This lack of large territory to

control may foster increased social relationships among natives and administrators, eventually leading to large-scale and long-term acculturation. Good examples of such island control include Portugal's holdings in East Asia (Fieldhouse 1967: 147) and French control of Guadeloupe, an island of. only 584 square miles, but which had over 1100 colonial administrators (Thornton 1965: 185). Such large numbers of bureaucratic officials relative to area must eventually have an acculturative effect upon the population.

-\/-

The archaeological implication of colonial and imperial policies

of partial or full acculturation has never been tested. If accultura-

tion is occurring, one would expect a change through time in material culture to occur within households of native populations to increased amounts and classes representing a total range of exposure to the foreign value systems. Along with settlement material, burial data which can document change in corpse disposal, body orientation, spatial location of the cemetery, or grave goods may be important. The spread of acculturative values and material culture may be quite like that of Clarke's regional sub-cultural assemblage (1968: 237). Gradually through time one would see increased amounts of ‘foreign’ artifacts within traditional assemblages, culminating in almost total, or complete change to these new forms of material culture; the materi-

al 'death' of a previous culture.

Historical and ethnographic cases of colonial acculturation exhibit tendencies for acculturation to occur first and with greatest rates of change among the elite of the indigenous populations (if the society is internally stratified to begin with). However, the archaeologist must not lose sight of the fact that culture change can occur whereby the direction of acculturative change is directly opposite the usual pattern of natives changing to values held by the controlling society. For example, in Manchu dominated China, the dominant minority was acculturated to customs of traditional society (van der Sprenkel 1962).

Instances of imperialism with acculturation are more subtle questions of archaeological discovery. The social changes take place within economic institutions, usually the marketplace or trade net~work. Other components of the society, including the material culture, may not be drastically affected. What would be needed is a research design examining long-term temporal changes in spatial location of markets, commodities traded, and transport networks.

Equilibrium Situations : The control situation which is historically most common is

one of colonial settlers or administrators confined to specific settlements within a territory of a given society or geographical region. Almost all daily activities for the controllers are conducted within the confines of this enclave settlement, which usually has a specific function. Thus the enclave resembles in part a typical residence settlement incorporating life activities with some additional functions. The enclave lifestyle, including house architecture, subsistence, and discard strategy, may resemble to a great extent that of the 'mother' nation. For example, the enclave colonies founded in lonia and Megara by Greeks have great similarities in overall material culture to Greece (Graham 1964: 5). The repetition of such similar enclaves can be quite extensive. The Greek city of Miletus founded 75 enclaves throughout the Mediterranean; each a duplication of Greek way of life.

The rationale for enclave control through minimal social exposure to native population is usually in terms of wanting stabilized economic transactions and decreased civil administration--a lowprofile strategy. This approach allows for the most efficient control -18-

and exploitation of locations believed important (e.g., coastlines, waterways, natural resource sites) while indigenous populations are limited in cultural exposure and retain their native values. Where

empires controlled vast tracts of land (e.g., Britain in India,

Spain in the Americas) this was the only feasible approach to acquiring resources and keeping pacified large populations. Unlike the previously discussed policies, acculturation of natives was not consciously part of the enclave approach.

One of the best examples of large-scale and long-term enclave policies comes from the Russian conquest and colonization of Central Asia during the 19th century (e.g., d'Encausse 1967; Pierce 1960; Bacon 1966). The Russians were confronted with a multitude of soci-

eties differing greatly in degree of sedentism, language and technology (but for the most part Islamic in belief). Strategy was one of establishing military centers at socially important locations,

supplemented by treaty obligations with powerful groups (e.g., Uzbeck Khanates of Bukhara). Gradually the military enclaves were trans-

formed into both military and civil-administrative centers with native elders retaining control in traditional villages and Islamic laws prevailing in most situations. By the end of the 19th century, Russian settlers moved into the area for farming and pastoralism with the resulting displacement of native pastoralists and increasing forced acculturation of the remaining native population. If one examines the British strategy in India (Thompson and Garratt 1934), Spanish in the Americas (e.g., Parry 1940, 1966), or

Roman in Pannonia and Upper Moesia (Bartel 1980), one would see re-

markably similar approaches of controlling large and ethnically diverse populations through enclaves of small numbers of colonial military and administrative settlers.

There is considerable variation in type of colonial enclave.

Some like the Greeks in Sicily or Europeans in North America amount

to organic extensions of settlement lifestyle in their homeland. The

European settlers in eastern North America tookwith them as much ma-

terial culture as could be transported (Fieldhouse 1967: 99). Often, these settlement enclaves were spatially located where there was little interaction with natives. For example, the first European colonial enclave in Africa was by Dutch settlers along the Cape of Good Hope in the 18th century. No native settlement barred their activity. It was only later, during British control and Zulu expansion from the northeast, that an enclave situation was transformed into a colonial frontier wave problem of conflict (De Kiewiet 1937). One of the very best archaeological examples of colonial en-

claves comes from the Egyptian Middle and New Kingdom conquest and

control of Nubia (Kemp 1978). Walled towns incorporating civil and

religious functions for administrators were established; all culturally isolated from the indigenous population. These 'temple towns' had on a smaller scale behaviors of large Egyptian city to the north. In a similar fashion, the Roman coloniae, usually composed of retired legionnaires was a settlémént enclave with standard constitution and legal rights existing in a provincial situation surrounded by native groups (Millar 1967: 84). Enclaves which were established in Celtic

or Greek regions by Romans have material cutlure and settlement architecture more in common with that of Italian Roman cities than -19-

the immediate environs.

A variation on the settIlment enclave would be those situations where native settlements already exist in locations desired by the colonizing power. A take-over with building alteration would ensue,

having the effect of possibly changing functions of the site. For example, a Celtic hill-top settlement existed at the strategic location of the junction of the Sava and Danube rivers for hundreds of

years prior to Roman movement into what ts now Serbia, Yugoslavia. These waterways were crucial to control and trade, so the Romans took

the location and transformed the previous Celtic settlement into a large military fort (Singidunum).

Archaeologically, such situations should be plainly seen in. the stratigraphy and artifacts of a given site through time. This example still remains an enclave strategy, since the native inhabitants would be displaced.

Such forts are examples Of specialized function enclaves. Enclaves of this type usually are located as part of a moving ‘'wake' of frontier expansion (Bartel 1980: 19-23) during a period of conquest and boundary control. Some forts, like those in the Britishheld Carolinas of North America (South 1977a), were of short duration, sometimes in use for only six months to two years. Other specialized. enclaves occur frequently, and could have great consequences for the long-term complexion of control. European presence in Australia began as locations for British criminals (penal

enclaves). These sites were quite sizable; from the first such penal colony in Sydney in 1788 up to 1868, 130,000 convicts had been sent to Australia (Fieldhouse 1967: 247). The administrative and merchant Support populations for the penal sites eventually founded settlement

enclaves (Mills 1915). These civilian settlements were the result of private initiative; not begun by British policy. The most common form of enclave .is the one related to specialized economic concerns. Almost every colonizing power has established such enclaves devoted to extraction, production and transportation of goods. There are numerous examples, including Portuquese plantation enclaves in Brazil (Boxer 1963), Spanish silver mines and factories throughout the Americas, Roman lead and iron mines in Spain and Yugoslavia (Healy 1977) or Japanese market centers and ports of Taiwan (Crissman 1976).

Enclaves of a specialized economic pursuit exhibit a degree of

regularity in spatial configuration across the landscape. This regularity has been analyzed by economic geographers. In such situations there tends to exist a single colonial city of greatest economic and administrative importance (i.e., primate city). This settlement is located so as to take advantage of efficient transport (coastal, riverine) and coordinate economics of production and export of native

natural resources, as well as administrative control of the colonial hinterland (Smith 1976: 30-32).

Such urban colonial centers, along with smaller and more specialized task sites form a system organized for economic purposes.

lt is a vertical hierarchy of settlements encompassing, at the lowest -20-

level, single purpose extraction and production sites and rural markets, then native district market towns, and finally the single primate city. This solar system, unlike classic central place coordination or networks has all the flow of commodities towards the single primate city. Such a system has been analyzed in modern African colonial situations (Vance 1970; Johnson 1970).

The establishment of urban primate cities may have some important cultural consequences for the indigenous population, and hence for the archaeological record. For example, during the 50 years of Japanese control of Taiwan during the late 19th and. early 20th centuries, a series of marketing and administrative enclaves were established. The construction of road networks and importance of markets into these centers made for easy access by the native popu-

lation; this in turn made for a significant difference in native

social interaction and marriage patterns (Crissman 1976). The differences in descent and residence would have an effect upon distribution of native domestic material culture. Equilibrium situations involving imperialistic policies have also been common. We are referring to those times when treaty or clientage arrangements are established between two societies, but

without any, or only a low level of administrative or military forces existing in territory of a controlled group. The usual rationale for such treaties to occur is also economic, but it may occur where an empire needs a 'buffer zone’ between its possessions and another power.

One of the best archaeological examples comes from the Egyptian imperial policy in Southwest Asia (especially Syria) during the New

Kingdom (Kemp 1978: 38-39). Here the Egyptians were faced with

long established city-state groups with traditions of urbanism, literacy, high-grade technology and large populations relative to Egypian military strength. A series of clientage treaties were formed between hereditary Asian kings and Egypt, whereby the king

maintained city-state control while swearing allegiance to Pharoah

and offering yearly tributes. Archaeologically, such a relation-

ship may only be seen through written treaty documents and a trickle of trade goods between patron and client. Along the Roman frontier (limes system) there existed another example of imperial equilibrium. Various pastoral chiefdom societies

(i.e., Sarmatians, Huns) had treaties to cease raiding in return for

marketing privileges in the various fort enclaves (Mocsy 1974).

More recently, during 18th century European exploitation of the east and west coasts of Africa, material culture was traded for slaves or gum trees. No European military, administrative or civil settler population existed. During the 20th century the strategy was changed to colonial enclaves with British supervision, but dayto-day administration in hands of hereditary chiefs with native law and courts (i.e., Dual Mandate policy) (Dilley 1937; Lugard 1965; Perham 1937).

On a larger scale such economic influence as Islamic control over Europe in the 12th century or Japanese influence in modern United States could be considered macro examples of economic imperi-

-2\-

alism in equilibrium. An archaeological strategy to deal with these

larger forms is probably beyond our financial and sampling boundaries.

For both colonial and imperial situations, we are specifically referring to what D. L. Clarke (1968: 49-50) called metastable equilibrium. Such a system is in cultural balance between colonial or imperial nation and natives only in the absence of a suitable cata-~ lyst, which if introduced, would significantly alter the existing social relationships. An armed rebellion against an enclave by

natives (such as in Roman Germany) may change policy from one of

colonial equilibrium to that of eradication. As in Russian Central Asia, an influx of settlers may change policy towards forced acculturation. Therefore, all archaeological situations hypothesized to be some form of equilibrium control should be investigated with suf-

ficient temporal scale so that potential catalysts of social change leading to shifts in organizational policy may be obtained. Indigenous Response to Control

The potential for, and kinds of group-oriented responses to being controlled by another group are some of the most interesting behavioral studies conducted by social anthropologists. Our major problem lies in the degree of archaeological visibility of such action. The most frequent type of response is some form of military uprising. Such a response may stem from many circumstances. Examples include the American Revolution of European settlers, Indian Mutiny of 1857 (Chirol 1910), and the Boer War of 1899 (MacMillan

1964), all against Britain (only the Indian example is a true indigenous response); the slave revolt in Haiti against the French in the late 19th century (Stoddard 1914); the Herero uprising of

1904-7 in southwest Africa against Germany (Henderson 1962); and the Abyssinians against Italians in 1896 (Darkwah 1971). As an example of resistance to Roman rule, a local North African leader named Tacfarians formed a coalition of pastoral groups warring (unsuccess-~

fully) against the provincial rule for seven years (Garnsey 1978:

252). With the exception of the American and Abyssinian examples,

all the rest were not successful and brutally suppressed.

Such a response may have a degree of archaeological visibility

similar to the eradication policies previously discussed. Short

or long term warfare, often amounting to skirmishes, has low material

visibility. With protracted rebellion, changes in patterns of settlement location, and existence of small camp sites, may even have the archaeological appearance of some forms of sites generated by band societies (Binford 1980).

Another form of indigenous response is in terms of ideological

revitalization movements. Such nativistic revivals are seen frequently in the ethnographic record (e.g., Worsley 1957). There have

also been such movements in the past. In 69 A.D. a person named Marcus of the Celtic Boii claimed to be divine and accumulated approximately 8,000 followers. This nativistic revolt was crushed by another Celtic group, fully acculturated to Roman values (Millar 1967: 152). Im rural Roman-held Algeria of the 3rd century A.D. ~22-

annual fairs were held without colonial administrative permission,

owing to divine commandment of three local non-Roman deities (Juba, Genius Vanisnesi, Dii Ingirozoglezim) who spoke through visions to local leaders (Shaw 1979: 94-100). Revitalization movements have never been studied archaeologi-

cally. It appears that unless ideological movements are on a large populational scale, or if textual material occurs, analysis may not be archaeologically visible or mistaken for continuation of previous ideological beliefs without intervention by the dominating power. Rather than a response to control, they may be mistaken for a formal policy of allowing these people to continue beliefs (some equilibrium policy).

These responses, either military or ideological, tend to be the last resorts conducted by sections of the indigenous population. The most frequent response to policy is not as reactive; namely acceptance of some degree of acculturation. Use of Pattern Recognition in Colonial Archaeology

During the last decade there have been some important advances

in technique of quantitative analysis related to colonial studies. South (1977a, b; 1978a, b; 1979) and his associates (e.g., Ferguson 1977; Lewis 1977) have investigated British patterns of control in the United States during the 18th century, examining intra- and inter-site functioning, ethnicity and social stratification. What is being analyzed are the ways a British Colonial System will perpetuate behavioral regularities, which will in turn pattern themselves as by-products in the archaeological record.

South found that by excavation of the entire range of British sites (civilian homes, shops, forts) and ordering of material culture into certain classes of objects (e.g., kitchen, architectural)

one can derive various important contrasting patterns which would ‘fingerprint’ a British Colonial System observed archaeological ly in the United States without further historical documentation.

South, following Kaplan (1964), calls this method of archaeo-

logical inquiry pattern recognition. By pattern we mean a relation-

ship between two or more elements; the elements related repeatedly, directly or sequentially in the real world (Kuhn 1974: 66). Any

pattern consitutes an information set. This consitutuent information enables the archaeologist as observer to make inferences about something other than the pattern itself - or at least other than the observed portion of the pattern. The inferences made are a function of the pattern and its relation to the forces that produced it, and the observer's prior knowledge of a given pattern and the forces which created it. The recognition of patterns involves a formal meta-process by which uncoded sensory inputs from a given

pattern in the environment selectively activate a coded pattern or groups of patterns already learned and stored in the cerebral cortex, leading to an inference that an instance of that pattern currently can be viewed in the environment. Therefore, recognition of patterns is an act of decoding information from a given input. -23-

Briefly, South (1977a) had delineated three patterns which reoccur at sites of the British Colonial System in the eastern United States. The Brunswick pattern is the spatial regularity of secondary refuse disposal at entranceways to various ruins, such as houses, shops and forts. The Carolina pattern is one of high ratios of artifact types subsumed under the artifact class 'Kitchen' relative to artifact types subsumed under the class ‘Architecture’, and rela-

tive to other artifact classes (e.g., furniture, arms, clothing). The Frontierpattern exhibits an inverse ratio to that of the Carolina pattern; high architecture types relative to lower kitchen types in

approximately the same magnitude of frequency percentage.

What are the behavioral relationships expressed through these

patterns of refuse? The Brunswick pattern is highly reflexive of ethnicity and the enculturation process of socialization. For example, in a study comparing 18th century British-Colonial and German-American

garbage disposal patterns, there was found to be a significant difference in spatial location of the refuse (Carrillo 1977). The differences between the Carolina-and Frontier patterns are not that easily explained. They may be due to a flurry of building activity over a relatively short temporal span in frontier-colonizing situations forming high percentages of architectural artifacts (e.g.,

nails, clamps) compared to economic conditions in politically more stable domestic areas (Carolina pattern) whereby kitchen middens ~ accumulate and kitchen artifacts have a greater probability of being in massed discard and archaeological recovery contexts.

It is felt here that the method of pattern recognition, modes of analysis, and the classes of patterns found for the British Colonial System are highly adaptable to almost all colonial archaeological situations worldwide. The rationale for this rests with: 1) behavioral regularities associated with colonial/imperial control, namely high probability of either eradication, forced assimilation or form of metastable equilibrium; 2) limited sets of indigenous societal responses to colonial control, namely strong ethnic self-identification maintenance, ac~ culturation, metastable equilibrium; 3) replication of the enculturation process for a given ethnic group (i.e., Brunswick pattern), namely ethnicity perpetuation and low-level ethnic change on individual basis; h) spatial and functional nature of colonial domestic stabilization behind the 'wake' gradient of frontier military expansion and conflict; and, 5) such a restricted set of behavioral regularities correlated with a concomitant set of regularly reoccurring archaeological refuse. Using the archaeological situation in the Roman provinces of Pannonia (western Serbia, eastern Croatia) and Upper Moesia (eastern Serbia), we have begun to examine the applicability of

pattern recognition for this specific colonial Empire.

During the last 15 years a number of archaeological sites Spanning the 2nd-4th centuries A.D. (dating based on numismatic, ceramic, inscription and ethnohistoric data) have been excavated for Pannonia and Upper Moesia (Mécsy 1974). They span a range from urban settlement (e.g., Sirmium = modern Sremska Mitrovica) with a

, -24-

large diversity of ruin types (e.g.; public forum buildings, shops, villas, sports arenas) to large military camps (e.g., Singidunum =

modern Belgrade, Viminacium = modern Kostolad¢), small forts (e.g.,

Boljetin on the souther bank of the Danube), and specialized mining sites (e.g., Kraku'lu Yordan, Mt. Kosmaj). Also excavated have been Roman ruins of unknown function, such as the site of Gamzigrad near Zajecar which has been variously claimed to be an emperor's palace,

large hunting villa, or Moesian administrative center. The diversity of excavated sites within a 200 year occupation span allows for a concrete test of the pattern recognition model. The Moesian-Pannonian example is a worthy test of the pattern recognition model's validity because it meets all necessary criteria (South 1977a: 90): a) Large collection from totally excavated sites (Sirmium

villa),

b) Large collection from sampled site (Kraku'lu Yordan), c) Examples of domestic occupation (Sirmium, Cariéin Grad, Gamzigrad, Minicipium DD),

d) Examples of site on which specialized activity occurred

(Kraku'lu Yordan, Sirmium shop sites), e) Examples of secondary midden immediately adjacent to ruin

in the yard (Sirmium villa, Boljetin, Viminacium, Cari€in Grad), | f) Example of secondary midden discarded in ruin after occupation of structure had ceased (Sirmium forum, villa), g) Example of secondary midden deposited at a place removed

from the immediate vicinity of the occupants discarding the refuse

(Singidunum, Viminacium) , h) Examples of midden resulting from domestic occupation (Sirmium, Caraéin Grad, Gamzigrad), . i) Examples of midden resulting from military occupation

(Singidunum, Viminacium, Boljetin),

j) Examples of midden resulting from public occupation

(Kraku'lu Yordan, Sirmium shops, Viminacium) ,

k) Collection representing a wide range of activities reflecting human behavior (Sirmium),

1) Collection recovered in a controlled manner using screens to recover small speciments (Kraku'lu Yordan),

m) Collections from which total artifact counts were available, and no selectivity of artifacts on the basis of value judgments

have been made concerning curation of objects. (Only approximate example is from Kraku'lu Yordan, with total counts from sampled and screened soundings.),

n) Collections covering at least 100 years in combined time of occupation represented (all sites), o) Collections from sites distributed over some spatial distance (The Pannonian-Moesj.an sites span a total territory of approximately 36,000 square miles.) Unfortunately, as with some of South's sites, none of these Roman sites was originally excavated with pattern recognition in mind, and only one, Kraku'lu Yordan, was excavated under screening and sampling procedures.

With this caveat understood, let us look at some preliminary statistical comparisons among these Roman sites in terms of the formulae developed by South, and then compare the Roman patterns to that

from the British-American system. The Romano-Brunswick Pattern

Only a limited set of totally excavated ruins are available for Upper Moesia and Pannonia. These include the villa site at Sirmium (Locality 4), Cariéin Grad villa, and Sirmium shops. Densities of ceramic and metal artifacts found at Sirmium in both the villa and shop areas are three times greater in the rear portions external to the structures. For the shop localities this’ would be the zone parallel and behind the street. The villa sites at both Sirmium and Cariéin Grad also show the same rear entrance/exit disposal of secondary refuse. A similar pattern to that of the British-American Colonial System is also exhibited in a low bone to artifact ratio (1:40) in the refuse deposits adjacent to these occupied ruins. As a tentative generalization until more complete excavations are conducted, we may state that on Romano-Illyrian sites of the 2ndkth centuries A.D., concentrated refuse deposits will be found at rear

point of entrance/exit in dwellings and shops. No military fortifi-

cations. have been excavated in necessary totality to judge refuse

patterning for such a class of ruin. The Romano-Carolina Pattern

Although there is a paucity of total and controlled excavation of Roman ruins in Serbia, some patterns are discernible which approxi-

mate that of the Carolina colonial pattern.

Raw counts and frequency percentages are available for various

artifact types falling under the classes of 'kitchen','architecture', 'person', ‘activity', 'arms', and ‘clothing’. The settlement ruins located within politically stabilized portions of these provinces show similarities in the ratio of high amounts of kitchen artifacts versus lower amounts of architectural artifacts; thus equate with the British-American situation (Table 1). Included are the ruins of

domestic function at Sirmium (villa), Cari¢in Grad (villa), Municipium DD (horrem), and Gamzigrad.

Although the range of variation is large within each class, and the ranking of the artifact classes of less value are changeable, there are scale and ranking patterns among all sites having high kitchen versus low architecture ratios. As with the British-American Colonial System, we hypothesize this refuse pattern is reflexive of low-output day-to-day consumption behaviors. Comparing the overal| Statistics for the British-American and Roman-I]lyrian ruins show

similar scale and ranking of artifact classes. The major difference

is that Romano-Illyrian sites tend to have greater amount of manuf act ~

uring activities within domestic ruins.

-2?6-

The Roman Frontier Pattern The grouping of Danubian forts and encampments (Singidunum, Vim-

inacium, Boljetin) and the frontier stabilized site of Kraku'lu Yordan exhibit a high architectural versus low kitchen ratio of artifacts (Table 2). This is the pattern shared with the British-American colonial system and probably represents large-scale short-span building activity. Also, all British-American and Romano-I1}lyrian military sites show high ratios (upwards of 90%) of nails versus all other metal artifact types. The wide range in percentages of artifact classes for the Romanolllyrian group is due to the inclusion of the Kraku'lu Yordan ruin (Bartel, Kondic and Werner 1979). This ruin was included for two reasons: 1)it is the only site excavated through sampling and screening procedures, and 2) it represents a non-military frontier site. The ruin's iron manufacturing specialty is seen quite clearly from the counts and frequency percentages per artifact class in Table 3.

In fact, this site consitutes research on a new pattern, that of

manufacture. All bone material (for glue production), 90% of the ceramics and 30% of the metal artifacts are related to utilitarian

aspects of tool production. If this ruin was not included in the

comparison, there would be a stronger relationship between the mili-

tary frontier zones for the two colonial systems. The three other

Romano-I|llyrian sites exhibit an extremely high percentage of archi-

tecture artifact types.

Preliminary statistical analysis has shown scale and ranking similarities among provincial Roman sites and between BritishAmerican and Roman-l!Ilyrian Colonial Systems. The important question raised is why such patterns should occur? Although a great deal of

controlled systematic excavation is needed in the future, it is hypothesized here that certain behaviors cross-cutting different social control situations were in operation. First, we have two identical patterns of refuse disposal (Brunswick pattern) reflexive of separate ethnic enculturation. Secondly, the Carolina patterns represent social control stabilization and acculturation in colonial areas removed from the ever-changing frontier line. These frontier patterns of rapid deployment and abandonment of military outposts occur wher-

ever potential intergroup conflict may arise, or during temporary establishment of territorial borders.

South's work is notable for a number of reasons. First, it

amounts to fieldwork excavation and artifactual measurement techniques

for dealing with colonial archaeology. The classes of artifacts used (e.g., architecture, kitchen, personal) to compare ratios occur and reoccur at sites generated by a given colonial power within all territory controlled. South's original excavation strategy calls for

complete excavation of ruins; an expensive and time consuming task

which is not always possible. However, if proper sampling strategies are used, such restrictions should not hold. Secondly, our comparative examination of British and Roman colonial behaviors clearly shows the more generalizing outcome of the approach. Pattern recognition is worthwhile in analyzing certain

regularities which cross-cut different colonial powers. It is a

standardized technique useful regardless of controlling society or -27-

time period. This is due to, in thé case mentioned here, the same policies by British and Roman administrations. In both instances colonial enclaves (i.e., Frontier Pattern) and colonial acculturated

settlements (i.e., Carolina Pattern) existed. The artifacts and

classes of artifacts are to be expected as such military enclaves and stabilized domestic settlements. Finally, the Brunswick Pattern representative of ethnic enculturation in discard is not related to any of the six outcomes from the matrix model; but could be used to

pinpoint ethnicity of either a given native society prior to culture contact, or the ethnicity of the controlling settler population. South's work is therefore limited to two outcomes of colonial policy (colonial equilibrium and acculturation) and says nothing about im-

perialistic policy or strategyof.eradication and resettlement. But its virtue outweighs the present limitations, since it does enable Standardized cross-cultural measurement.

Summary and Conclusions

We have attempted to develop a probablistic model of social

domination which will account for almost all situations faced in the archaeological record. The regularity through which many different

powers have manipulated native societies and land cannot be dismissed. From our examination, certain testable hypotheses emerge for further archaeological research:

1. Policies of acculturation occur most frequently where empires control small populations occupying small territories, and when a given empire has acculturation as a conscious part of their philosophy of governance. 2. Enclave policies occur when controlling large populations occupying large territories. The archaeologist should expect an enclave strategy to be socially unstable. 3, Eradication and resettlement policies tend to precede enclave development and occur where land will be used by the dominating power for natural resource exploitation or boundary maintenance.

4, Native responses, although having a large military component, tend to also contain a strong ideological component necessary to. stimulate native cohesion.

Finally, it is felt that the archaeological data base holds the

key to the true development of a comparative anthropological theory of social power and control.

| -28-

BIBL 1!OGRAPHY

Bacon, Elizabeth E., 1966, Central Asians:under Russian Rule, Cornell, Ithaca.

Balsdon, J. P. V. D., 1979, Romans and Aliens, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Bartel, Brad, 1980,''Colonialism and Cultural Responses: Problems Related to Roman Provincial Analysis,'' World Archaeology 12(1), pp. 11-26. Bartel, Brad, Vladimir Kondic, and Michael R. Werner, 1979, ''Excavations at Kraku'lu Yordan, Northeast Serbia: Preliminary Report, 1973-76 Seasons,'' Journal of Field Archaeology 6, pp. 127-149.

Barth, Fredrik, ed., 1969, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, Little, Brown,

Waltham, MA. ,

Binford, Louis R., 1980, 'Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: HunterGatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation,'! American Antiquity 41(1), pp. 4-20. Blake, M. E., 1947, Ancient Roman Construction in Italy, Carnegie Institution, Washington.

Boxer, C. R., 1963, Race Relations in the Portuguese Colonial Empire, University Press, Oxford. Bromley, Raymond J., 1976, ''Contemporary Market Periodicity in Highland Ecuador.'' In Regional Analysis, Volume 1: Economic Systems, Carol A. Smith, ed., pp. 91-122, Academic Press, New York.

Brunt, P. A., 1978, ''Laus Imperii.'’ In Imperialism in the Ancient World, P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker, eds., pp. 159-192, University Press, Cambridge.

Burling, R., 1974, The Passage of Power, Academic Press, New York.

Caesar, Julius, 1960, War Commentaries of Caesar, Rex Warner, trans. Mentor, New York.

Calder, J. E., 1974, ''Some Account of the Wars of Extirpation and Habits of the Native Tribes of Tasmania,'' Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 3, pp. 7-28..

Carrillo, R. F., 1977, "Archaeological Variability - Sociocultural Variability.'' In Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology, Stanley South, ed., pp. 73-99, Academic Press, New York. Cassius Dio Cocceianus, 1914, Dio's Roman History, E. Cary, trans. William Heinemann, London.

Chirol, V., 1910, Indian Unrest, Scribner's, New York. Clarke, David L., 1968, Analytical Archaeology, Methuen, London. -29-

Crawford, M. H., 1978, ''Greek Intellectuals and the Roman Aristocracy

in the First Century B.C.'' In Imperialism in the Ancient World, P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker, eds., pp. 193-208, University Press, Cambridge.

Crissman, Lawrence W., 1976, "Spatial Aspects of Marriage Patterns as Influenced by Marketing Behavior in West Central Taiwan.'' In Regional Analysis, Volume Il: Social Systems, Carol A. Smith, ed., pp. 123-148, Academic Press, New York.

Crossland, R. A. and Ann Birchall, eds., 1973, Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean, Duckworth, London.

Darkwah, Kofi, 1971, Menelik of Ethiopia, Heinemann, London.

De Kiewiet, C. W., 1937, The Imperial Factor in South Africa, University Press, Cambridge. de Lange, N. R. M., 1978, "Jewish Attitudes to the Roman Empire.'' In Imperialism in the Ancient World, P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker, eds., pp. 255-282, University Press, Cambridge. d'Encaussee, Helene Carrére, 1967, ''Systematic Conquest, 1865-1884, and Organizing and Colonizing the Conquered Territories."' In Central Asia: A Century of Russian Rule, Edward Allworth, ed., pp. 131-171, Columbia, New York.

Deschamps, Hubert, 1953, Les Methodes et Doctrines Coloniales de la France, Firmin-Didot, Paris.

Dilley, M. R., 1937, British Policy in Kenya Colony, Barnes & Nobles, New York.

Duby, G., 1974, The Early Growth of the European Economy, Cornell, Ithaca.

Ferguson, L. G., 1977, ''An Archaeological-Historical Analysis of Fort Watson: December 1780-April 1781. In Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology, Stanley South, ed., pp. qi-71, Academic Press, New York.

Fieldhouse, D. K., 1967, The Colonial Empires, Delacorte, New York.

Finley, M. 1., 1978, ''The Fifth Century Athenian Empire: A Balance Sheet.!' In Imperialism in the Ancient World, P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker, eds., pp. 103-126, University Press, Cambridge.

Fogelson, R. D. and R. N. Adams, eds., 1977, The Anthropology of Power, Academic Press, New York.

Friedman, J. and M. J. Rowlands, eds., 1977, The Evolution of Social Systems, Duckworth, London.

Garnsey, P. D. A., 1978, ''Rome's African Empire Under the Principate."' In Imperialism in the Ancient World, P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker, eds., pp. 223-254, University Press, Cambridge. -30-

Garnsey, P. D. A. and C. R. Whittaker, 1978, "Introduction." In Imperialism tn the Ancient World, P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R.

Whittaker, eds., pp. 1-6, University Press, Cambridge.

Graham, A. J., 1964, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, Barnes & Noble, New York.

Greenberg, M., 1951, British Trade and the Opening of China, 18421880, University Press, Cambridge. Healy, J. F., 1977, Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World, Thames and Hudson, London.

Henderson, W. 0., 1962, Studies in German Colonial History, F. Cass, London.

Hodder, lan, 1977, ‘Distribution of Material Culture in the Baringo District, Western Kenya,'' Man 12 (2), pp. 239-269. ---]978, "Social Organization and Human Interaction: The Development of Some Tentative Hypotheses in Terms of Material Culture.'"' In The Spatial Organization of Culture, lan Hodder, ed., pp.

199-269, Duckworth, London. |

---]979, "Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture Patterning." American Antiquity 44, pp. 446-454. Horvath, R. J., 1972, "A Definition of Colonialsm," Current Anthropology 13(1), pp. 45-57. Johnson, E. A., 1970, The Organization of Space in Developing Countries, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Kaplan, A., 1964, The Conduct of Inquiry, Intext, New York. Kemp, B. J., 1978, ‘Imperialism and Empire in New Kingdom Egypt.''

In Imperialism in the Ancient World, P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker, eds., pp. 7-58, University Press, Cambridge.

Kuhn, Alfred, 1974, The Logic of Social Systems, Jossey-Bass, London.

Lenin, V. I., 1939, Imperialism: The Highest State of Colonialism, International Publishers, New York.

Lewis, K. E., 1977, "Sampling the Archaeological Frontier: Regional Models and Component Analysis.'' In Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology, Stanley South, ed., pp. 151-202, Academic Press, New York.

Lugard, Lord, 1965, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa, Archon, Hamden (CT).

Macmillan, W. M., 1964, Bantu, Boer and Briton, University Press, Oxford.

Millar, Fergus, ed., 1967, The Roman Empire and its Neighbors, Delacorte, New York.

-3|-

Mills, R. C., 1915, The Colonization of Australia, F. Cass, London.

Paul, London. |

Mocsy, Andras, 1974, Pannonia and Upper Moesia, Routledge & Kegan Nock, A. D., 1972, ''The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year.'"'

In Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, Z. Stewart, ed., pp. 736-790, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Nutton, V., 1978, ''The Beneficial Ideology.'!' In Imperialism in the Ancient World, P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker, eds., pp. 209-222, University Press, Cambridge.

Parry, J. H., 1940, The Spanish Theory of Empire in the Sixteenth Century, University Press, Cambridge. ---1966, The Spanish Seaborne Empire, Knopf, New York.

Perham, M., 1937, Native Administration in Nigeria, University Press, Oxford,

Pierce, Richard A., 1960, Russian Central Asia, 1867-1917, University of California Press, Berkeley. Plomley, N. J. B., 1969, ''An Annotated Bibliography of the Tasmanian Aborigines,'' Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Papers 28.

Roberts, S. H., 1929, History of French Colonial Policy, 1870-1925, 2 vols., F. Cass, London. Shaw, Brent D., 1979, ''Rural Periodic Markets in Roman North Africa as Mechanisms of Social Integration and Control.'' In Research in Economic Anthropology, Vol. 2, George Dalton, ed., pp. 9I-I17, JA! Press, Greenwich (CT).

Slade, R. M., 1962, King Leopold's Congo, Institute of Race Relations, London.

Smith, Carol A., 1976, ''Regional Economic Systems: Linking Geographical Models and Socioeconomic Problems,'' In Regional Analysis,

Vol. I: Economic Systems, Carol A. Smith, ed., pp. 3-63,

Academic Press, New York.

South, Stanley, 1977a, Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.

---1978a, ''Pattern Recognition in Historical Archaeology,'' American Antiquity 43(2), pp. 223-230.

---1978b, ''Research Strategies for Archaeological Pattern Recognition. in Historical Archaeology,'! World Archaeology 10(1), pp. 36-50. ---1979, '"'Historic Site Content, Structure, and Function," American Antiquity 44 (2), pp. 213-237

~32-

South, Stanley, ed., 1977b, Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.

Stoddard, T. L., 1914, The French Revolution in San Domingo, Houghton Mifflin, New York.

Sutherland, L. S., 1952, The East India Company in Eighteenth Century Politics, University Press, Oxford. Tacitus, Cornelius, 1967, Agricola and Germania, H. Mattingly, trans., Penguin, Baltimore. Thompson, E. and G. Garratt, 1934, Rise and Fulfillment of British

Rule in India, Macmillan, London. |

Thompson, L. M., 1960, The Unification of South Africa, 1902-1910, University Press, Oxford.

Thornton, A. P., 1965, Doctrines of Imperialism, John Willey, New York.

---1977, Imperialism in the Twentieth Century, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Trigger, Bruce, 1974,'The Archaeology of Government,'' World Archae-

ology 6, pp. 95-106. Vance, C., 1970, The Merchant's World, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (NJ).

Vanderbosch, A., 1944, The Dutch East Indies, University of California Press, Berkeley.

van der Sprenkel, S., 1962, Legal Institutions in Manchu China, Athlone, London.

Wells, C. M., 1972, The German. Policy of Augustus: An Examination of the Archaeological Evidence, Clarendon, Oxford.

Whittaker, C. R., 1978, ''Carthaginian Imperialism in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries.'' In Imperialism in the Ancient World, P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker, eds., pp. 59-90, University Press, Cambridge.

Worsley, P., 1957, The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of 'Cargo' Cults in Melanesia, MacGibbon and Kee, London.

-33-

cS

c reo e eMm e MO e NIe= (eo) WO remeWoO XX.NIVY QA. ©O | —_— I 1 /—OO j 1 ~~j AJ’ Om Or CO e erpeecewo° TH iom stS&°reOo sd aad ™ mom NN MOM &§ om ao Mm

{©

Oo

fam

NM st O NN FT OD BR

rm mam~oO MrcWZ ;coorW©QODp) WO mM

r—6|I|jII Oc S CO MN se we WO CO WD +r &

GH eo se eOY ° e e re eee C) Oo ore

op)

a

[on

Sod co + ~~ BSS _” t.: 7 ‘| ]@ ' ~ .eLdngén we eee - yetwe” Q Jormlien (Hotingssjén) f

S Oe o) youn owt mn ANGERMANLAN ‘, w ° lots PG See = S\ »Stroms ° ~~2 e’man wotRrs
Revsund 7% —_*gnR. to) 7< 4° Mattmar\Lake Stérsjon, jung

re ) = QQ ye 0 ne 0 S C CoD evel

« \‘,°;y:N ‘, - ‘~y (p°

Trondheim ° / .

bm \ HARJEDALEN , .

a 502 NE100km \ ~. oO ‘\ \77lo | °

.....Highest quaternary shoreline V “eo .

Figure 1: Features and localities mentioned in the text.

-50-

1[KEY :|

\ rN Lake graves ) — == , 2-4

5 °\

\[ AAis: 5-15 1

‘ SS LS WN SN

- \ ye

SS

aT > : ( ob | 7

(| @& N ( SEN NOTES

, MO \

os \\ ». >y¥ >_ |a NL.‘,\.»>> >> 0»!50 100km (

Figure 2: The distribution of ‘lake graves' (after Selinge 1976).

-5]-

3. ESKIMO-EUROPEAN CONTACT ARCHAEOLOGY IN LABRADOR, CANADA

Susan Kaplan

Environmental Setting

Labrador, a geographically and environmentally diverse land, is a triangular-shaped peninsula and the northeastern limit of the American continent (figure 1). This 1,619,000 km* area includes a plateau or tableland which reaches an elevation of 600 m in the in-

terior; rivers which drain to the coast from the plateau; and broad

bays, long and deep fiords, and complex island clusters which give the coast a tattered appearance. Majestic snow-capped mountain ranges rise along the central coast and dominate the north coast. The tip of Labrador consists of low lying barren hills.

Caribou, black bears, fish and birds inhabit Labrador's interior. Coastal waters team with fish, sea mammals, and birds. The

coastal environment has supported a larger human population than has the interior, due to the abundance of marine resources and the ease

of sea and ice travel along the coast.

The coastal environment of Labrador is marked by highly season-

al cycles. Throughout the winter months inner island, inner bay, and fiord environments lie under a cover of landfast ice, while pack ice flows off shore of outer islands and headlands. After spring breakup of landfast ice coastal waters become choked with pack-ice. Finally, during part of the summer the coast is ice free, save for icebergs, which are present year-round (figure 2). The seasonal ice and open water cycle affects life along the

coast in a number of ways. Marine mammals are sensitive to snow

cover, ice conditions, and water temperatures. Fast ice, an ideal winter and spring environment for the denning ringed seal, is avoided by the harbour seal, an open water dependent animal. The harp seal and the bowhead whale migrate through open water in the fall and spring, while the narwhal and walrus inhabit Labrador's winter and spring ice-choked waters. Few of these animals live in Labrador

throughout the year, and once in the area, they shift their habitats (figure 3). People dependent on these animals for food, shelter,

and clothing must change their settlement locations and hunting orientations throughout the year in accordance with the habits of the game. Research Background

The outlines of Labrador's prehistory were known by 1977, largely as a result of William Fitzhugh's work in Hamilton Inlet and Nain (figure 4) (Fitzhugh 1972, 1977), but also due to the efforts of Junius Bird (1945), Douglas Leechman (1950) Patrick

Plumet and Raoul Hartweg (1974), James Tuck (1975), Peter Schledermann (1972, 1976a, 1976b), Steven Cox (1977), Christopher Nagle ; (1977), and Richard Jordan (1974, 1977).

, 53

According to archaeological investigations, Labrador was first

inhabited approximately 7000 years ago when Maritime Archaic Indians

settled along the south-central coast. Pre-Dorset Eskimos arrived 3000 years later. Since that time, both Indian and Eskimo groups have occupied the region, trading and warring with one another, and competing for many of the same lithic and faunal resources. NeoEskimos, the subject of this paper, were the last native North American people to settle tn Labrador. They, along with Nascopi Indians

and Euro-Canadians, inhabit Labrador today.

While the central coast of Labrador, particularly the section

between Nain and Okak, was well surveyed by 1977, the north coast

was relatively unknown archaeologically. Ethnohistorical data indicated that this stretch of coast--which in 1977 was uninhabited save for a single town in the Killinek region--had once supported a number of Neo-Eskimo settlements, as well as Moravian Mission stations and Hudson's Bay Company posts. A few archaeological surveys of the north coast (Leechman 1950; Plumet 1979) suggested that prehistoric sites would be found here as well.

Extensive archaeological surveys of northern Labrador were undertaken during the summer of 1977, 1978, and 1981 by small teams of Smithsonian Institution and Bryn Mawr College archaeologists.

Prehistoric and historic Indian and Eskimo sites, and European settlements were located, mapped, tested, and in some cases excavated. By far the greatest number of sites located related to the Neo-Eskimo

occupation of Labrador. As a result of this field survey, as well

as previous work, close to 200 major Neo-Eskimo sites have been recorded between Hamilton Inlet and the Killinek region.

Investigations focusing on the extent and nature of Neo-Eskimo culture change have involved the analysis of archaeological subsistence and settlement pattern data, as well as research into the ecological and geographical settings of human occupation and the history of Eskimo-European contact. An ecologically focussed study which neglected historica] developments, and an historically based study which neglected consideration of the opportunities and limitations imposed by the environment in which contact took place, were seen as inadequate examinations of factors affecting Neo-Eskimo life. A close scrutiny of archaeological, ethnographic, ethnohistorical, and ecological information was undertaken in the belief that these distinct bodies of data would provide the ingredients for a study of how Neo-Eskimo groups dealt with their changing natural and social environments. This paper is a summary of investigations into the

ways in which, over the course of 500 years, Labrador Neo-Eskimos adapted to a complex geography, a dynamic environment, and other native North American as well as European groups. Neo-Eskimo Settlement of Labrador

Approximately 500 years ago Neo-Eskimos, a group of Eskimos

whose origins can be traced to northwest Alaska, began to settle along the north coast of.Labrador. They arrived with dog-drawn sleds, kayaks, and umiaks, and were able to move long distances with’ speed and ease. They entered a land inhabited by maritime adapted Dorset Eskimos in the north and Point Revenge Indians in the south.

54

The nature of Dorset Eskimo and Neo-Eskimo interaction in the

eastern Arctic has been the subject of discussion for a number of

years (Fitzhugh 1969; Bielawski 1979; Jordan 1979; Plumet 1979; Thomson 1981a, 1981b). In Labrador, radiocarbon dates from Late Dorset and early Neo-Eskimo sites, Dorset and Neo-Eskimo toggling harpoon head forms, reoccupied Dorset semisubterranean sod houses, and Neo-Eskimo myths which describe earlier peoples are among the few pieces of information suggesting contact between these two groups. Point Revenge Indian sites dating between A.D. 1485 and A.D. 1625 (Fitzhugh 1978) have been located along the central coast, as have Neo-Eskimo sites dating to this period. However, no material evidence of contact between these two groups has been isolated. Along sections of the coast where both Point Revenge Indian and NeoEskimo sites have been found, the Point Revenge Indian sites are in inner island regions while the Neo-Eskimo sites are on outer islands. This patterning suggests that the two groups avoided one another, and exploited different resource zones. Early Neo-Eskimo Occupation

The outer island locations of Early Neo-Eskimo settlements

(figure 5) and faunal remains recovered from sites dated to this

period indicate that the Neo-Eskimos practiced a modified maritime adaptation. They focussed on the procurement of large marine mammals such as bowhead whales and walrus, as well as white whales, and

ringed, harp, harbour, and bearded seals. Fish, birds, caribou and

bears were hunted as well.

The small size of the 16th century Neo-Eskimo semisubterranean

sod house and the presence of a single sleeping platform across the rear wall of the dwelling suggest that the house was occupied by a nuclear family. Groups of between three and five families, possibly comprising one or two extended families, lived in a settlement.

Semisubterranean sod houses were occupied in the fall and winter. Snowknives, found in sod house sites, and ethnohistorical descriptions of snowhouses (Taylor 1976) suggest that snowhouses

served as temporary shelters in the winter and spring. Rectangular and oval stone structures, found on outer islands and next to inner

island rattles, are probably the remains of early fall, late spring,

and summer structures that were roofed over with skins.

Hunting was probably a cooperative settlement effort. Whaling required the combined skills of a number of people from one or two settlements. Walrus hunting was probably most efficiently done by groups of hunters as well. Caribou hunting required the cooperation of an entire settlement. Women and children may have driven the animals towards hunters armed with bows and arrows and concealed behind blinds, or into water where hunters in kayaks waited with spears (Saladin d'Anglure and Vezinet 1979). Late spring and summer

fishing at weirs was a collective effort with dozens of people spear-

ing, splitting, drying, and smoking the fish.

The few burials dated to the 15th and 16th centuries identified in Labrador contain no suggestion of status differentiations among 39

individuals. In all likelihood, excellent hunters and powerful

shamans were key figures in Labrador Neo-Eskimo society. Most decisions involving a settlement were probably reached by consensus of individual family heads.

Materials analysis studies hold the promise of providing data

concerning Neo-Eskimo exchange networks. Among the artifacts recovered from Neo-Eskimo sites are a series of tools made out of fine

grained slates and green nephrite. The slates and nephrite may be

exotic to Labrador, and may be indications of Neo-Eskimo long distance trade networks. Within Labrador, trade in unworked soapstone or finished soapstone lamps and pots, and ivory, wood, and feathers

seems likely, as these materials are not uniformly distributed along the coast.

The Neo-Eskimo colonizers arrived in Labrador equipped with the

technologies and strategies necessary to exploit the highly seasonal and dispersed marine and terrestrial resources of the region. Fifteenth and sixteenth century s0d house settlements between the Nain and Killinek regions attest to the success of this small, mobile, and probably aggressive group of people. Expansion South

Ethnohistorians (Martijn 1974; Martijn and Clermont 1980;

Taylor 1980) are presently embroiled in a debate regarding the southernmost distribution of permanent Neo-Eskimo settlements at the time of initial contact. The debate centers around whether the native people described by early European visitors were Montagnais Indians,

Beothuk Indians, or Neo-Eskimos. A group of Neo-Eskimo tools recovered from the St. Paul's River region suggests that Neo-Eskimos

penetrated the Strait of Belle Isle. Whether they settled along the Strait is not known. No semisubterranean sod houses or tent rings

attributed to Neo-Eskimos have been located south of Hamilton Inlet.

Presently, this heavily forested stretch of coast is poorly known

archaeological ly.

By the mid-1I6th century Basque whalers were sailing to Newfound-

land yearly. The Basques were hunting large whales feeding in these productive waters. Between twenty and thirty ships left Spain for

Newfoundland in mid-June. They remained in the New World until mid-

January, when they returned to Europe heavily loaded with oil. While in Newfoundland, the Basques established blubber rendering and cask-~ making stations on shore. Since the whalers expected to return to Newfoundland every year, they cached ewipment and supplies at shore stations. These caches contained wood for the manufacture of casks;

nails , spikes, and red roofing tiles for the building of shel-

ters; and small boats used to ferry men between the larger boats and

land (Barkham 1973; 1974; 1977a; 1977b; 1978; 1980; Tuck and Grenier

1981).

Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Neo-Eskimos

expanded their settlements south of Nain. They first settled in

Hopedale, a major bowhead whale and seal hunting locale. Three or four families, possibly from Hopedale, ventured further south and settled on Eskimo Island, a small island in the Narrows of Hami1ton Inlet. Eskimo Island was a considerable distance from Hopedale. 56

quarter.

While the rich fish, seal, and bird resources of the Narrows probably assured this small community an excellent subsistence base, the settlement was in Indian territory and vulnerable to attack from that Excavations of late sixteenth century Neo-Eskimo sod houses in Hopedale (Bird 1945; Kaplan 1983) and on Eskimo Island (Jordan 1974; 1977; Jordan and Kaplan 1980; Kaplan 1983) reveal that in addition to

traditional native material culture the Eskimo Island settlers were in possession of metal spikes, a piece of a small anchor, sherds of earthenware, fragments of thin Venetian-like glass, glass beads, red roofing titles, and European hardwoods. These materials resemble

artifacts excavated from Basque shore sites in the Strait of Belle

Isle (Tuck and Grenier 1981; Tuck 1982) and were probably recovered by Eskimos who came upon Basque caches and abandoned shelters. The

Neo-Eskimos incorporated these materials into their traditional tool kit. Metal spikes were hammered into knife blades and harpoon heads,

tiles were used as whetstones. ;

hardwood fragments were used to fashion hunting weapons, and roofing Initial contact between the Labrador Neo-Eskimos and Basque whalers was probably minimal. The whalers were in Europe throughout the winter and early spring when Eskimos may have visited the Strait

of Belle Isle. From the Eskimos' perspective, travel was easy during this time of year and danger of confrontations with strangers was minimal. The first mention of face-to-face contact with natives appears in an account left by a Basque crew forced to overwinter In Labrador in 1547 (Barkham 1978).

Dutch whalers and traders began to ply the waters of Baffin Island and Labrador in the early 17th century (Kupp and Hart 1976). A Dutch presence in Labrador has not been established archaeologically. However, historical documents studied by Kupp and Hart indi-

cate that a class of small Dutch trading ships travelled to Labrador and Baffin frequently.

Dutch-Labrador Neo-Eskimo contacts were both amicable and hos-

tile. They were also short-term, for unlike the Basques, the Dutch

did not establish seasonal stations in Labrador or Newfoundland. However, the European presence had far reaching implications, for

the general Eskimo population became acquainted with European goods

and with the European market for baleen, oil, and ivory. It should be noted, however, that throughout this period the majority of European goods in the hands of Labradcr Neo-Eskimos came by way of European stations in southern Labrador-Newfoundland. The Eskimos

living along the south-central coast had easiest access to these goods and began to take advantage of their position, developing a profitable exchange of European and native materials with their Eskimo neighbors in the north.

By the late 17th century the Basque and Dutch whaling industries had collapsed and the French were exploiting the fish resources of the Strait of Belle Isle and southern Labrador. A number of. fishermen established year-round residences in the New World, while others fished and seal hunted in Labrador waters seasonally.

57

European goods became highly prized commodities among seven-

teenth and eighteenth century Eskimos. Flotillas of over 100 Eskimo

boats are reported to have travelled to the Strait of Belle Isle,

where Eskimos traded with the French, plundered French settlements, and murdered hostile foreigners (Hill, Drachardt, Haven, and Schloezer in Lysaght 1971). The Eskimo forays, in which numbers of natives died in transit, at the hands of Europeans (Trudel 1978; 1980), and probably from European diseases, equipped the central coast Neo-Eskimos with wooden boats, metal tools, and quantities of miscellaneous items. During this same period individual French traders established

trade relations with certain Eskimos. Louis Fornel, and later his wife, operated a trading post in Hamilton Inlet and sent a ship there annually (Zimmerly 1977). By 1680, one hundred years of contact had taken place and groups of Eskimos from as far north as Nain were

visiting the Strait of Belle Isle in search of European goods. Settlement Nucleation

The most obvious feature of an 18th century Neo-Eskimo site is the large rectangular semisubterranean sod house with a long entrance

passage and multiple sleeping platforms . This large sod structure appears only in Labrador and in sections of Greenland, with no clear precursors in either place, raising questions concerning the

origin of this house form and the relationship between Greenland and Labrador Neo-Eskimo groups.

The large eighteenth century sod house has been referred to as

a ''communal house!!! (Schledermann 1972; 1976b; Jordan 1974; Jordan and Kaplan 1980; Kaplan 1980), ''longhouse'! (Petersen 1974-75; Gulldv 1982a; 1982b), and ''common house!' (Petersen 1974-75). Richard Jordan

has argued that the communal house was a social response to external European contacts rather than an adaptation to changing climatic conditions as suggested by Petersen (Petersen 1974-75) and Schledermann

(1972; 1976a). According to Jordan's line of reasoning, the house

functioned around a head of household who had power and wealth ac-

quired through control over whaling activities and the European trade. J. Garth Taylor (1976) developed a similar notion concurrent with Jordan, and based his discussion on the study of Moravian Misston

records dating to the late eighteenth century. Taylor correlates

the adoption of the communal house with the development of long distance trade networks, through which native goods moved south in exchange for European manufactured goods. These networks were controlled by powerful traders of ''middlemen."'

While archaeologists have focussed attention on questions regarding the origin of the eighteenth century sod house, other eighteenth century developments have only recently been recognized (Kaplan 1983). Eighteenth century census figures (Curtis 1774; Taylor 1974) and archaeologically and statistica)ly derived models of NeoEskimo population trends suggest that as a result of the Neo-Eskimos' highly successful adaptation to Labrador the population had grown

quite large (figure 6). Historical accounts also mention that a

Labrador Neo-Eskimo dog team consisted of up to 14 animals, as compared to the three or four dogs maintained by the Central Canadian Eskimos (Taylor 1974). In order to support large human and dog populations Neo-Eskimos 58

evidently shifted their sod house settlement locations from outer island to inner island regions (figure 7). From the inner island locations hunters could exploit a variety of microenvironmental zones ranging from the outer island ice edge to the interior. Archaeological evidence also indicates that in addition to a shift in settlement locations, settlements increased in size. According to Taylor's analysis of Moravian Mission documents, two hundred years after contact the Labrador Eskimos were living in multi-family households, each headed by an individual who often had two or more wives. The father-husband was the authority figure in the house. He was recognized as such by virtue of his kinship position and abilities. Often, he was the owner of an umiak, an expensive and critical piece of hunting equipment. As owner of the umiak and other hunting gear, the head of the household held considerable influence over younger members of his extended family, who cooperated

with him in order to profit from collective hunting and trading efforts. Interestingly, the description of an eighteenth century household resembles that of a sixtéenth century settlement. Archaeological investigations of eighteenth and early nineteenth century burial practices reveal that unlike the sixteenth century, certain men were singled out for special treatment. These individuals

were buried on prominent points of land along with their weapons, sleds and kayaks. Kohlmeister and Kmoch (1814), Moravian missionaries who travelled the length of the coast, mention the practice of burying excellent hunters and powerful shamans on high potnts of land. European accounts of eighteenth century Labrador Neo-Eskimos

contain descriptions of influential and wealthy individuals whose spheres of activity reached beyond that of the household (Taylor 1974; Lysaght 1971; Kaplan 1983). The descriptions suggest that by the eighteenth century certain men had heightened political and economic roles. Often, these individuals were long distance traders or brokers who forged interregional networks and travelled widely. Through the combined efforts settlements along the length of the coast were linked in an exchange network whereby baleen, oil, sealskins, ivory, and feathers were traded south, eventually reaching Europeans. Europeanmade goods, including beads, spikes, cloth, guns, and glass were ex~ changed north to Eskimos along the length of the coast. The most powerful of these ''leaders'' were men who combined the traditional leadership qualities of a shaman and an excellent hunter with those of an entrepreneur. Excavations of an eighteenth semisubterranean sod house on

Eskimo Island, and the testing of other sod houses from this time period revealed that in addition to native produced materials, the Eskimos along the length of the coast were in possession of quantities of French and some British manufactured goods. A single Eskimo Island house contained approximately 8,000 trade beads, 5 French clasp knives, hundreds of spikes and nails, gunflints, glass, ceramics, kaolin pipes, cast iron pot fragments, and miscellaneous trinkets.

The complex of materials -from Eskimo Island suggests formalized trade

relations with Europeans. The quantities of goods in the house suggest that its occupants were traders. Indeed, the Eskimo Islanders were taking advantage of their proximity to European goods and the single point of entry of these goods into the Eskimo economic system. 39

This group, living at the southern -limit of Neo-Eskimo permanent occu-

pations were in no sense a ''fringe'' people. Rather, they were entrepreneurs involved in a highly lucrative trade. The 1763 Treaty of Paris granted England rule over Labrador.

Initially, this transaction between European nations had little im-

pact on the Neo-Eskimos, who continued to trade with Europeans, as

well as war with them. The British attempted to reduce the vulnerability of their subjects and to oust the French competition by prohibiting year-round occupation of Labrador by Europeans. This plan had little tmpact on the activities of Europeans or native Americans. In 1771 the first year-round European settlement north of Hamilton Inlet was established when Moravian missionaries, under agreement with the British government, erected a mission station and trading post in Nain Bay (Whiteley 1964; Hiller 197la; 1971b). The Moravian missionaries wanted to convert the Eskimos to Christianity.

They saw the trading post as a means of attracting Eskimos to their mission and as a way of eliminating the Eskimos' need to travel] south to British fishing stations for European goods. Stations and associated trading posts were established at Okak (1776) and Hopedale (1786) as well. While the missionaries made some tInroads into the Eskimo com-

munity, the Church's refusal to sell firearms or ammunition to the Eskimos, and the overseas baleen market kept the native long distance trade networks active. The Moravians finally changed their trading policies and began stocking firearms. Since the sixteenth century Europeans exploited bowhead whales

and walrus in the Davis Strait-Labrador Sea region. By the early nineteenth century the stocks were overhunted and these large marine

mammals were rare along the Labrador coast (Elton and Ashburner n.d.).

Their scarcity had serious implications for a large human population that maintained large dog teams. In order to feed people and dogs the Neo-Eskimos had to intensify their exploitation of alternative meat and blubber resources. The fall and spring harp seal hunts developed a new importance. Caribou and fish became critical backup resources during the winter months.

The depletion of whale and walrus stocks forced the Neo-Eskimos

to alter their subsistence practices. Rifles and fish nets, available

from Europeans, played key roles in the development of new subsistence

Strategies. Rifles increased access to caribou by eliminating the necessity of settlement level caribou drives. Hunters, working in

pairs, could now hunt these animals without coordinating schedules with others, and could bring down game virtually anywhere. Rifles soon replaced the bow and arrow as the most efficient way to procure numbers of caribou. Rifles never replaced harpoons, however, because

during certain times of the year seals that are shot and killed immediately sink and are difficult to retrieve. A harpooned animal can always be recovered.

European-made fish nets gave the Neo-Eskimos access to, great numbers of ocean-running fish throughout the summer and fall. Previously people had been limited to winter fishing through the ice, spring fishing at weirs, and summer jigging. Eskimo families could 60

now cache quantities of fish for use during periods of food scarcity. The fish net could be tended by one or two people.

Regionalism |

During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the Moravian missionaries began to see their native membership grow. In addition to the religious implications of conversion, Church membership affected the economic and social life of the new Christians. During periods of food scarcity the Church provided its membership with dry food stuffs. Mission Eskimos were advanced credit at assoc-

iated trading posts, and were loaned fox traps and fish nets. Converts were also encouraged to hunt and fish close to the Mission Stations in order to cache food against hard times and to lessen the possibilities of encountering heathen Eskimos. In fact, the converts were admonished to avoid interaction with heathens. Those who followed the Church's wishes refused to share food with their heathen neighbors, stopped attending native dances and ceremonies, and lived

at the stations, apart from their families and friends.

In the early 1800s the Hudson's Bay Company began to operate

trading posts in the Hamilton Inlet region. By the mid-1800s they had expanded their operations into the Nain region. The long distance

trade networks which had characterized eighteenth century Neo-Eskimo economics no longer existed. The European market for baleen had collapsed, whale stocks were depleated, and the trading posts staffed by missionaries and European traders destroyed the key to the organi-

zaiton of the eighteenth century trade--the single point of entry of

European goods. However, along the far north coast and into Ungava Bay long distance networks were still in operation. Traders journeyed to Okak and Hebron trading posts, where they acquired European goods which they sold to Killinek and Ungava Bay Eskimos at inflated prices.

Three distinct contact situations existed at one time along the length of the Labrador coast in the early nineteenth century. On the

far north coast Eskimos came in direct contact with Canadian and American fishermen on occasion, and they made periodic journeys to Moravian Mission and Hudson's Bay Company trading posts when they desired a European made item. No European's resided among the north-

ern Eskimos and for the most part the Eskimos initiated the contact. Along the central coast the resident Moravian missionaries controlled much of the contact and their influence on the Eskimo population liv-

ing along this section of the coast was great. In Hamilton Inlet a

number of Eskimo women had married French trappers and traders, and

the native population interacted with independent traders and fisher-

men as well as Hudson's Bay Company employees (Zimmerly 1977),

By the 1870s the contact situation had changed. The Moravian Mission and the Hudson's Bay Company opened a number of stations and

posts along the north coast of Labrador, and increasing numbers of American and Canadian cod fishermen plied coastal waters. Eskimo settlements flourished between Hamilton Inlet and Killinek, many appearing along stretches of coastline which previously had not been permanently inhabited. Settlement locations were determined by proximity to or distance from European trading establishments rather than: being based on the productivity of local resource zones.

61

The Moravian Misston and the Hudson's Bay Company vied for the

business and loyalties of north coast Eskimo groups. This competi-

tion resulted tn a race for control of the north coast and gave rise

to a leap-frog arrangement of stations and posts. The Moravians in-

habited Okak and Hebron, the Hudson's Bay Company worked out of Saqlek, the Moravians occupied Ramah Bay, and the Hudson's Bay Company

traded in Nachvak (figure &).

Archaeological investigations of late nineteenth century sites have revealed that people were living in small semisubterranean and

above ground sod houses and European made materials had almost com-

pletely replaced native material culture. The small square houses had glass windows and wooden doors. They contained earthenware

dishes, kaolin pipes, European clothing, metal knives, scissors, Files, glassware, jewelry, rifles, and metal traps. The nuclear family was the efficient economic unit of the late nineteenth century for a number of reasons. These include the lack of large sea mammals, the introduction of new hunting technologies, and an emphasis on trapping and fishing--all which eliminated the need to maintain cooperative economic relationships extending beyond

the nuclear family. European trading posts along the Jength of the

Labrador coast allowed virtually anyone access to European goods with which to earn a living. Young people could become economically

independent at an earlier age than could their eighteenth century counterparts. Finally, European institutions operating tn Labradcr encouraged people to think in terms of individuals and their immediate families rather than in terms of extended families and settlements.

Late nineteenth century settlements differed from those of the preceding period. During the eighteenth century a process of nucleation around household heads and interregional leaders developed, and settlements were located along sections of the coast where a wide range of marine and terrestrial resources could be procured. When the Moravian Church began to operate in Labrador, missionaries encouraged settlement around Mission stations. In the nineteenth century the Moravian station settlements had grown too large for the local resources base, and the missionaries found that they had to

establish satellite stations. The idea. was that these satellite

stations would more evenly distribute the population and food re-

sources.

While the nineteenth century marked a return to a nuclear family based household, the social! and economic organization in opera-

tion did not resemble that of the sixteenth century. In the nine-

teenth century a community consisted of a number of individual families. Each family appears to have maintained its own economic rela-

tionship with representatives of a European institution. Cooperation between settlements was nonexistent, as individual settlements were marked by loyalties to local European posts. The Labrador coast was inhabited by a modified maritime oriented population that came to rely heavily on certain terrestrial resources and European goods. Its

population was moving towards a trapping, and ultimately a cash economy.

62

Summary

The changes in domestic house forms, burial practices, material

culture, and subsistence and settlement patterns identified in the archaeological record are the material remains of rapid changes in

the Labrador Neo-Eskimo social and economic systems. The Neo-Eskimo

population aggressively responded to opportunities and problems which arose In an ever-changing natural and social environment. General knowledge of European goods, and limited access to those goods, resulted in changes in Neo-Eskimo social and economic organi-

Zation. Aggressive and clever exploitation of this new resource propelled certain individuals into new statuses and roles while infusing the preexisting trade network with new activity.

European goods continued to reach Neo-Eskimos from southern

European settlements for almost two hundred years. During this period, the population grew dramatically due to the Eskimos’ highly

successful adaptation to the coast. Settlements were relocated to inner island resource zones from outer islands, as this large population exploited a broad range of marine and terrestrial resources.

While the number of settlements in Labrador increased slightly from the preceeding period, the major trend was toward a growth in the size of settlements, such that each settlement consisted of a number of multifamily households. Long distance exchange networks, fully developed by the mideighteenth century, moved European goods north along the coast, while

baleen, oil, ivory, and feathers were moved south. A class of men acted as brokers, traders, middlemen, and suppliers. Men who combined the qualities of an excellent hunter, shaman, and trader achieved great status, power, and wealth. These men functioned as settlement and regional leaders.

The communal aspect of the social, economic and political organization of the eighteenth century Neo-Eskimo society stands in

direct contrast to the system developed in the late nineteenth century. At this time a population subject to reduction in numbers due to European introduced diseases lived in small dispersed settlements.

Settlement locations were selected with proximity to European posts and stations, rather than abundant natural resources in mind. The organization of settlements was such that individual Eskimo families maintained major economic relations with the representatives of the European establishment nearest their settlement. For the most part, social and economic systems of cooperation among Eskimo fami-

lies collapsed.

This study has shown that Labrador Neo-Eskimo culture underwent

repeated, rapid, and major changes over a 500 year period in response to ecological, demographic, and social developments. Analyses suggest that initially Labrador Neo-Eskimo social and economic organization was structured largely around ecological considerations. By

the late eighteenth century strategies of resource exploitation changed in response to a rapid growth of the population. In addi-

tion, exploitation of and control over European goods became a focal

point of social, economic, and political activities, and settlements along the length of the Labrador coast functioned as an economically 62

integrated unit. During the nineteenth century ecological and geo-

graphical condittons continued to have tmpact on Eskimos. However,

the subsistence and settlement patterns of the small, dispersed, and

socially and economically isolated nineteenth century Eskimo communities were largely affected by and organized around European establish-

ments.

64

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barkham, Selma, 1973, ''Building Materials for Canada in 1566," Association for Preservation Technology, Bulletin 5(4): 93-94.

---]974, ''The Spanish Province of Terranova,'' Canadian Archivist 2(5): 73-83.

---1977a, ''The Identification of Labrador Ports in Spanish 16th Century Documents,'! Canadian Cartographer 14(1): 1-9

---1977b, 'The First Will and Testament on the Labrador Coast," Geographical Magazine 49(9): 574-81

---]978, ''The Unlikelihood of Prolonged Basque-Eskimo Contact in the

Sixteenth Century,'' paper presented at the First Inuit Conference, Laval University, Quebec.

---1980, "'A Note on the Strait of Belle Isle during the Period of Basque Contact with Indians and Inuit,'' Etudes/Inuit/Studies 4 (1-2): 51-58

Bielawski, Ellen, 1979, ''Contactual Transformation: The Dorset-Thule Succession,'' in Thule Eskimo Culture: An Anthropological Retrospective, Allen B. McCartney, ed. pp. 100-09. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 88. Ottawa: National Museum of Man.

Bird, Junius B., 1945, Archaeology of the Hopedale Area, Labrador, Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural

History, 39 (2).

Cox, Stephen L., 1977, ''Prehistoric Settlement and Culture Change at Okak, Labrador,'' Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.

Curtis, Roger, 1774, "Particulars of the Country of Labrador, Extracted from the papers of Lieutenant Roger Curtis, of His

Majesty's Ship 'Otter' with a plane chart of the coast,’

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 64(2): 372-87.

Fitzhugh, William W., 1969, ''The Dorset-Thule Transition: Studies tn Culture Change,'' Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology Harvard University. ---1972, "Environmental Archaeology and Cultural Systems in Hamilton Inlet, Labrador,'' Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 16.

---1977, ''Indian and Eskimo/Inuit Settlement History in Labrador: An Archaeological View,'' in Our Footprints are Everywhere, Carol Brice-Bennett, ed.: (Nain: Labrador Inuit Association) pp. 1-41. ~--]978, "Winter Cove 4 and the Point Revenge Occupation of the Central Labrador Coast,!! Arctic Anthropology 15(2): 146-74, 65

Gulldv, Hans Christian, 1982a, "Migration et Diffusion. Le Peuple-

ment Inuit de |'OQuest du Groenland a 1'Epoque Post-Medierale,"!

Etudes/Inuit/Studies 6(2): 3-20.

---1982b, "European Contact with the Eskimos in Greenland: Archaeological Investigations in West Greenland during the 1970's,"' Paper presented to the Anthropological Society of Washington, March 1982.

Hiller, James, 19/7la, "Early Patrons of the Labrador Eskimos: The Moravian Mission in Labrador 1764-1805,'"' in Patrons and Brokers in the Eastern Arctic, Robert Patne, ed. pp. 74-97, Newfoundland Social and Economic Papers, No. 2 (Newfoundland: Memorial University of Newfoundland) .

(99): 839-54. A

1971b, ''The Moravians in Labrador 1771-1805,'' The Polar Record 15

Jordan, Richard H., 1974, ''Préliminary Report of Archaeological Investigations of the Labrador Eskimos in Hamilton Inlet in 1973,'' Man in the Northeast 8: 77-89. ---]977, ‘Inuit Occupation of the Central Labrador Coast Since 1600,"! in Our Footprints are Everywhere, Carol Brice-Bennett, ed., (Nain: Labrador Inuit Association) pp. 43-48.

~--1978, "Archaeological Investigations of the Hamilton Inlet Labra-

dor Eskimo: Social and Economic Response to European Contact,''! Arctic Anthropology 15 (2): 175-85.

-~-1979, "Inugsuk Revisited: An Alternative View of Neo-Eskimo Chronology and Culture Change in Greenland,'' in Thule Eskimo Culture: An Anthropological Retrospective, Allen B. McCartney, ed. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 88 (Ottawa: National Museum of Man) pp. 149-170. Jordan, Richard H. and Susan A. Kaplan, 1980, ''An Archaeological View

of the Inuit/European Contact Period in Central Labrador ,'! Etudes/Inuit/Studies 4(1-2): 35-45.

Kaplan, Susan A., 1980, ''Neo-Eskimo Occupations of the Northern Labra-

dor Coast,'' Arctic 33(3): 646-658.

~--]983, ''Economic and Social Change in Labrador Neo-Eskimo Culture,’ Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College.

Kleivan, Helge, 1966, ''The Eskimos of Northeast Labrador: A History of Eskimo-White Relations 1771-1955,'' Norsk Polarinstitutt

Skrifter, 139.

Koh meister, B. and G. Kmoch, 1814, Journal of a Voyage from Okkak on the Coast of Labrador to Ungava Bay, Westward of Cape Chudleigh

(London: W. M. McDowall). 66

Kupp, Jan and Simon Hart, 1976, ''The Dutch in the Strait of Davis and Labrador during the 17th and 18th Centuries,'' Man in the Northeast 11: 3-20. Leechman, Douglas, 1950, Eskimo Summer (Toronto: Museum Press).

Lysaght, A. M., 1971, Joseph Banks in Newfoundland and Labrador, 1766. His Diary, Manuscripts, and Collections (London: Faber and Faber).

Martijn, Charles A., 1974, "Archaeological Research on the Lower St. Lawrence North Shore, Quebec,'' in Archaeological Salvage Projects 1972, William Byrne, ed. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 15 (Ottawa: National Museum of Man) pp. 112-30.

---1980, 'The Inuit of Southern Quebec-Labrador: A Rejoiner to J. Garth Taylor,'' Etudes/Inuit/Studies 4 (1-2): 105-25. Martijn, Charles A. and Norman Clermont, 1980, "'Les Structures de Pierres et la Mandibule du Site EiBk-3, Basse Cote-Nord

Quebec,'' Etudes/Inuit/Studies 4 (1-2): 127-34.

Nagle, Christopher, 1978, ''Indian Occupations of the Intermediate Period on the Central Labrador Coast,'' Arctic Anthropology 15

(2): 119-45.

Petersen, Robert, 1974/75, ''Some Considerations Concerning the Greenland Longhouse,'' Folk 16-17: 171-88.

Plumet, Patrick, 1979, 'Thuleens et Dorsetiens dans |'Ungava (NouveauQuebec)'’ in Thule Eskimo Culture: An Anthropological Retrospective, Allen B. McCartney, ed. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canda, Paper 88 (Ottawa: National Museum of Man) pp. 110-21. Plumet, Patrick and Raoul Hartweg, 1974, 'Archeologie du NouveauQuebec: Sepultures et Squelettes de 1|'Ungava,''! Paleo-Quebec 3. Saladin d'Anglure, Bernard and Monique Vezinet, 1977, ''Chasses Collectives au Caribou dans le Quebec Arctique,'' Etudes/Inuit/ Studies 1(2): 97-110.

Schledermann, Peter, 1972, ''The Thule Tradition in Northern Labrador,'! M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland.

27-3]. .

---1976a, ''The Effect of Climatic/Ecological Changes on the Style of Thule Culture Winter Dwellings,'' Arctic and Alpine Research 8 (1): 37-47. ---1976b, ''Thule Culture Communal Houses in Labrador,'"' Arctic 29(1);

Taylor, J. Garth, 1966, ''An Archaeological Survey of the Nain-Okak Area, Labrador,'! Manuscript on file in the Archaeology Division, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.

---1974, "Labrador Eskimo Settlements of the Early Contact Period,'' Publications in Ethnology 9, National Museum of Man, Canada. ---1976, "The Inuit Middleman in the Labrador Baleen Trade,'' Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, November 1976.

---1979, ''The Case of the Invisible Inuit: Reconciling Archaeology, History and Oral Tradition in the Gulf of St. Lawrence," in Thule Eskimo Culture: An Anthropological Retrospective, Allen B. McCartney, ed. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 88 (Ottawa: National Museum of Man) pp. 267-77.

---1980, ''The Inuit of Southern Quebec~Labrador: Reviewing the Evid-

dence,'' Etudes/Inuit/Studies 4 (1-2): 185-94.

Thomson, Callum, 198la, ''Preliminary Archaeological Findings from Shuldham Island, Labrador, 1980,'' Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador 1980, Annual Report 1: 5-19 ~--1981b, "Archaeological Findings from Saglek Bay, 1981,'' Archaeology in Newfoundland and Labrador 1981, Annual Report 2: 5-31.

Trudel, Francois, 1978, ''The Inuit of Southern Labrador and the De-_. velopment of French Sedentary Fisheries (1700-1760) ,'' in Papers from the Fourth Annual Congress, 1977, Richard J. Preston, ed. Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service, Paper 40 (Ottawa: National Museum of Man) pp. 99-121.

---1980, ''Les Relations entre les Francais et les Inuit au Labrador

Meridional, 1660-1760,'' Etudes/Inuit/Studies 4 (1-2): 135-45.

Tuck, James, 1975, '!Prehistory of Saglek Bay, Labrador: Archaic and Paleo-Eskimo Occupations,'' Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 32 (Ottawa: National Museum of Man).

---1982, "'A Sixteenth Century Whaling Station at Red Bay, Labrador,'' in Early European Settlement and Exploitation in Atlantic Canada, G. M. Story, ed. (St. John's: Memorial University of

Newfoundland) pp. 41-52.

Tuck, James and Robert Grenier, 1981, ''A Sixteenth Century Whaling Station in Labrador," Scientific American 245 (5) :180-90. Whiteley, W. H., 1964, ''The Establishment of the Moravian Mission in Labrador and British Policy 1763-1783, Canadian Historical Review 45(1): 29-50. Zimmerly, David W., 1977, ''Cain's Land Revisited: Culture Change in Central Labrador,'' Newfoundland Social and Economic Studies 16, Memorial University of Newfoundland.

| 68

a ‘y a =: “ fan ‘4 eS. BAFFIN BAY )

aa a . =, “4 e | Gio : 2 OS z PORN GREENLAND

here Ky Ve elVAAN . + = \\ ie bfas: C a pala ‘o oN

iBy Ny*oe trieh)

S 1500

) A A ®@ O ®

500 LLL. Sa

A A * oO @

| Av“A eo” 66 ®

_—Yell - 920-8 Ee 1%00 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 DATE A.D.

Original population: ,

A 80 " " 889 e 40 ” " 4.00% a 80 growth rate per year= 1.00%

5 «(40 ” a 88%

@® 40 " " 4570 * population in 1773 (census) % population in 1841 (census)

Figure 6. Neo-Eskimo population trends in Labrador.

74

NA2 20 BUSH ISLA a4, a BUSH ISLAND 4 4 AKULIALUK1 S—-A NUNAINGOK 1

e

KOMAKTORVIK |

A NACHVAK VILLAGE

—— 1,

y ae, YPERNAVIK A AIKKUSIK TUGLAVINA 0

A ,7

Fs)

AL? A UIBVAK POINT

oA OKAK 1

C Ce" OKAK MISSION +)

ro bs A BLACK 1SLAND

i} LONG POND BROOK.

Oa °° A ORKES BAY |

—_ fo KOLIKTALIK © Sl CA CLARK'S TICKLE

i.) °

SSSA NAIN MISSION "BA NIATAK A ws < & NUKASUSUTOK & °o

e

8

G, Lee 2 p

a ath century Sod House Villages A NAPATALIK 3 “ AVERTOK

pe “9 , eo a5 ,ea2 , SA ANNIOWAKTOOK ISLAND

6 eo o

* aA IGLUSOATALIGARSUK

/

a°

4

v oe?

ER POIN poUBLe Ma

| eon

ESKIMO ISLANO

A ESKIMO ISLAND

Figure 7. The Location of 18th Century Sod House Villages

15

ACCOLL ISLANR' cle LACY ISLAND 2

UGATSIVIK 1 A Gy Aa BUSH ISLAND 1% ORT BURWELLA otk PKULIALUK 4

P > LA NUNAINGOK EAST 4 Sa NUNAINGOK 4

© A MARTIN BAY’ Sym (KKUDLIAYUK 1

Hr LAGRADOR 1 . A GOOSE RU

eine om NORTH AULATSIVES 2

KER YA & BiG HEAD 1 C Lp» KOMAKTORVIK 4

Ni MOUNT A IVITAK COVE 1

ff

ELIZABETH? A ANACHVAK POST las A RAMAH BAY MISSION OV AA LITTLE. RAMAH BAY 3,4

§

1K A BEARS GUT 3

| IKKUS a A TUGLAVINA Yd Sa,ITT UPERNAVIK

es NULLIAK poetiag { ON A 190) NULLIAK POINT HERON OSA JOHANNES POINT 1 A WARP ISTHMUS 3 oA NAPARTOK

o

Qa OKAKS

OKAK TA) 0d A OKKAK MISSION

(+4 VE o

)| Ya} "6 oO

4%

“NAIN BAYS A BLACK ISLAND

utr 4 o & SOUTH AULATSIVIK @

-9

—_ a > gs EIVILIK BAY 3

NAIN MISSIONA Soe

BS ek NIATAK B O———A NUKASUSUTOK 8 oe 6

sk

A 9th Century sod House villages ewe)

fHEGOTAKALOK ISLAND @ AVERTOK

60° o

7 G-& |GLOSOATALIGARSUK CA AILIK

ra a MAKKOVIK MISSION t,

%

. ESL

Oo O

4

4 CORALAK HEAD 00°

a. MOLIAK COVE, AGye a5 SNOOKS COVE &

A ESKIMO TSLAND 2

Figure 8. The Location of 19th Century Sod House Villages

76

4. SPANISH COLONIAL ARCHEOLOGY IN THE SOUTHEAST AND THE CARIBBEAN

Kathleen Deagan

The investigation of European colonial impact in the New World

has been one of the unique concerns of historical archeology. In this investigation, the Anglo-American colonial roots in North America have been most visibly emphasized, both in archeological studies,

and in the resulting images of America's colonial past. In recent

years, however, Spanish colonial archeologists have been concentrating upon the very considerable impact of the Spaniards in the New World. Such research has been conducted throughout the southern and western regions of the United States, as well as in the Caribbean, Mexico and Central America. This discussion is tntended to concentrate upon the Spanish colonial archeology carried out in the southeastern United States and in the Caribbean. Of particular emphasis is that research which is assessing the effects of Spanish expansion upon the region's native inhabitants and those investigating the development of the Hispanic-American culture tradition. One notable exception will be the discussion of shipwrecks and marine sites, which are very important to Spanish colonial studies, but nevertheless, beyond the scope of this paper. Throughout most of the southeastern United States, and many

parts of the Caribbean, little direct evidence of Spanish colonial occupation is apparent today. Both areas were characterized in the

colonial era by conflict with and encroachment by other European powers (see Parry and Sherlock 1968; Leitch Wright 1970), which ultimately resulted in the replacement of the Spaniards by the English,

the French and the Dutch powers. By the 17th century, in fact, Spanish occupation of the Southeast was restricted to Florida; and

by the 18th century it was restricted to the settlements of St.

Augustine and Pensacola. By 1821, Florida was no lonaer a Spanish possession but became in that year an American Territory. A similar phenomenon occurred in parts of the Caribbean, although on a less

dramatic scale, with the Spaniards ultimately relinquishing what is now Haiti to the French, Jamaica to the English, and various smaller islands to the Dutch, English and French. Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic remain today as the major direct results of continuous Hispanic occupation from the colonial period until the present. The Spanish settlements of the Southeast maintained a very close

relationship with the Spanish Caribbean colonies. Florida was under the administrative jurisdiction of the Council of the Indies; and, until the early 18th century, under the religious jurisdiction

of the Bishop of Cuba (see Tepaske 1964). Havana was also an important source of trade goods and slaves for the few Floridians who could 77

afford them, and after 1740 Spanish troops rotated between Havana and St. Augustine (ibid).

Another characteristic shared by the Spanish Southeast and the Spanish Caribbean is the ultimate result of Spanish contact upon the native inhabitants of those areas. In both regions, no remnants exist today of those Indians who lived in daily contact with the Spaniards. Disease, warface, enforced labor and social disintegration within the Indian groups all played a part in this demise and this has further affected the orientations and methods of historical archeology in the Caribbean and the Southeast. Observations about the acculturative impact of Spanish culture on the Indian groups are restricted to the past; and direct ethnographic analogues are not extant.

Another shared characteristic of the Southeast and the Carib-

bean is at least partially a result of this. Unlike Spanish colonial

archeology in the western and southwestern United States, investigations tn the Southeast and the Caribbean have frequently concentrated

upon the Spanish colonial tnhabitants and their settlements. This

has recently encouraged a research emphasis on the mechanisms by which the Spanish-American cultural system emerged; while in the Southwestern United States it would appear that the tmpact of Spanish contact upon native groups is primarily emphasized (e.g., Carleton and Siefert 1981).

With the southeastern United States and the Caribbean several

categories of Spanish colonial site investigations can be distinguished. These include aboriginal sites of the historic period; mission sites; routes of the earliest explorations; Spanish military sites and Spanish towns. Within the last category are two subcategories: those of Spanish domestic sites and of monumental

Structures. The goals of archeology carried on at these sites have varied widely, and have included reconstruction or restoration of structures and routes; material culture studies; reconstruction of past Spanish or Indian lifeways; acculturation studies; and studies of Hispanic adaptive strategies in the New World. The following sections will discuss these sites and orientations as they are exemplified in the southeastern United States and in the Caribbean.

The Southeastern United States

Spanish colonial archeology has been carried out almost continuously in the southeastern United States since the 1930's (see Sherbutt and Gritzner 1980 for a bibliography of historical archeology in the Southeast). The earliest Spanish colonial archeology concentrated upon special function sites such as missions and forts (i.e.

Boyd, Smith and Griffin 1951; Chatelaine 1941) and was primarily oriented toward restoration concerns.

One of the earliest instances of Spanish colonial archeology in the Southeast was that of the Spanish colonial defenses in St. Augus-

tine, Florida. During the 1930's and 1940's the city of St. Augustine, in conjunction with the Carnegie Institute of Washington and 78

the Federal Works Project Administration, was involved in a program

of archeological and historical research into St. Augustine's Hispanic past (Chatelaine 1941). Archeological work was carried out at the Castillo de San Marcos and associated features, primarily for the ultimate purpose of restoration along the lines of the Williamsburg model (ibid).

The missions were also an important focus for early Spanish colonial archeology in the Southeast. The Franciscan missions operated in the Southeast from 1572 until 1763, and at their peak,

extended from Miami to South Carolina, and westward through the Florida panhandle. Early work in the Florida missions was devoted

to the definition of material and architectural patterns, and

Spanish-Indian material admixture (Boyd, Smith and Griffin 1952;

Smith 1956). Since the 1950's, mission excavations have taken place on the Georgia coast (Larson 1980; Milanich 1971); in northeast Florida (McMurray 1972; Hemmings and Deagan 1972; Merrit 1976); central Florida (Deagan 1972; Milanich 1972; Loucks 1979; Symes and Stephens 1965) and west Florida (Jones 1972, 1973). These excava-

tions have concentrated both upon the mission structures themselves, and upon the associated mission Indian villages. Processes of aboriginal acculturation and economic adjustment have been studied,

indicating in general that very few changes in the basic technological and material elements of mission Indians themselves were effected through the mission system (Deagan 1978; Milanich 1978; Merritt 1977; Loucks 1979). Although it is clear--particularly from the 1613 Confesionario of Frey Francisco Pareja (Milanich and Sturtevant 1972)--that major changes did occur in social, political and religious spheres of Indian culture through Spanish intervention, it

seems also that the friars themselves altered their traditional Hispanic material culture patterns more than did the Indians in the

missions.

The routes of the early explorers--most particularly that of

Hernando de Soto--have long been of interest to Southeastern arche-

ologists. Closely related to this issue is the investigation of the impact of these early explorations upon the indigenous inhabitants of the Southeast. Most of the research related to the de Soto entrada has concentrated upon the identification of sites visited by the explorers, and the delineation of diagnostic items of material culture left by them (i.e. Smith and Hudson 1980; Pearson 1978; Tesar 1980). Some of this work has, in addition, provided methodological advances in the integration of ethnohistoricai and archeological data to solve methodological and processual problems (Brain

et al 1975). Much of this data has been of service to the archeology of protohistoric sites, through the direct historical approach. One of the shared characteristics of Spanish colonial studies in the Southeast and the Caribbean--and one which differs from the southwestern United States--has been major emphasis upon the Spantsh

colonial inhabitants themselves. This was begun in the 1950's in

St. Augustine and Pensacola by Hale Smith (1965, Smith and Steinbach 1963) and John Griffin (Gjessing et al 1962). The primary emphases

of this early work were the definition of architectural and material patterns in support of restoration and public interpretation. Research in the colonial towns has continued to the present, however it underwent a shift in orientation in the early 1970's. This was 79

marked by the emergence of anthropologically-oriented archaeological work, largely through the influences of John Griffin (1958) and Charles Fairbanks (1975).

In recent years, much research activity has been concentrated in St. Augustine, Florida, which was the administrative, political, military and religious center of the Spanish southeast from 1565 unti] 1821. Intermittent investigations have also been carried out in Pensacola, Florida, which was established in 1698 (Smith 1962; Mac-

Murray 1976; Baker 1975). More recently, the investigation of the site of Santa Elena, at what is now Parris Island, South Carolina, has been carried out by Stanley South. That site was occupied from 1566 until 1587 (South 1980) and is important for illuminating the

early stages of Spanish colonization in North America.

The work at St. Augustine has been conducted since 1972 under a basic guiding question: What processes and mechanisms were involved in the adaptation by the Spaniards to the New World, and in the emer-

gence of a crystallized, Hispanic-American cultural tradition? This question--relevant to all areas of Spanish impact and influence--is important today for a number of reasons. The Spanish colonization

of the Americas changed the post-medieval world. The new empire became an extremely important economic, political and social force in changing that world; and it resulted in a major and uniquely New

World cultural tradition. An understanding of the origins of this cultural tradition is -essential to an assessment of its impact.

Work in St. Augustine has involved a multidisciplinary ''team!!

approach, including two or three historians and historic preservationists involved at all stages of the research. Fieldwork has been carried out through the Florida State University field school since 1974, and through the University of Florida field school for two years prior to that. Most of the major reports have been in the form of MA theses and Ph.D. dissertations. All of the research has been closely coordinated with agencies in St. Augustine that are respon-

sible for public interpretation of St. Augustine's past. This has

ensured that the very limited data base can serve the needs of anthropological archaeology, public interpretation and cultural resource management.

The first five years of the program were devoted to the investigation of 18th century patterns in the town. The 18th century is the only time period for which documentation of individual sites is available in St. Augustine. Such critical information as income, ethnic affiliation, occupation and family composition of the inhabitants of specific sites iS known for the 18th century in St. Augustine (Puente 1764; St. Augustine Historical Society, n.d.). Using this data as an ''anchor'' we have been able to delineate the ways in which

social variability is reflected in archeological variability at specific sites (Poe 1979; Shephard 1975; Deagan 1974).

Once such patterns were established, it became possible to archeologically investigate premises concerning ethnic admixture (Deagan 1973; Shephard 1975); status manifestation (Poe 1979); dietary adjustments (Cumbaa 1975, Reitz 1979); acculturation (Merritt 1977; Deagan 1974) and the persistence or alteration of Hispanic traits through time (King 1981; Zierden 1981). 80

After five years of work in the documented sites, it was possible (with the assistance of the National Endowment for the Humanities) to turn to the undocumented 17th and 16th century sites of the colony,

using the patterns of variability anchored on the 18th century sites as interpretive guides (Deagan 1983). The study of these earlier periods is, of course, essential to the identification of the emerg-

ing Hispanic-American tradition, and also to understanding the evolution of Hispanic adaptive strategies over three centuries (King 1981;

Zierden 1981; Deagan 1983).

Excavations have revealed that an admixture of Spanish, Indian and New Spain traits are present in variable proportions in the assemblages of all sites from the very earliest l6th century contexts to the end of the Spanish period. The specific proportions of such traits to one another are correlated with social factors within the colony. For example, aboriginal ceramics have constituted anywhere

from 47% to 89% of the ceramic assemblages of the various sites excavated to date, while Spanish ceramics have ranged from 7% to 35.34 of the ceramic assemblage at the same sites. We have found that the very lowest incidence of aboriginal ceramic occurrence !s correlated with the highest social and economic status in the colony (government officials in the upper 2% income bracket) (Poe 1979). The opposite is

true of the lower income criollo sites, and particularly of mestizo sites where the highest proportions of aboriginal ceramics are consistently found (ibid). Spanish majolica follows the reverse pattern, with a strong positive correlation between majolica and upper-status Spanish sites. In other words, on the basis of the proportions of certain material categories it is possible to predict the position of a given site on a scale from ''Spanish official'' to ''mestizo.'" All households, however, depended upon Indian produced items in the

kitchen, regardless of economic status.

Such a syncretic pattern has been documented by Reitz (1979)

and Cumbaa (1975) as also present in the diet of the colonists.

Although both locally available wild and domestic fauna were used by all households, those of known high-income and occupational status

relied much more heavily upon domestic mammals and large, commercially

caught fish. As might be expected, the lower income groups relied to a greater extend upon local resources; but this was particularly evident at the mestizo site, which included a number of estuarine species (particularly birds) which were not found at low or high income Hispanic sites (Cumbaa 1975).

A general pattern of trait combinations has become evident From

the analyses at St. Augustine sites, suggesting that, when possible, "Hispanic''-identifying traits were maintained, and were most carefully preserved in socially visible areas (for example, architecture, tablewares, ornaments and community plan). In the face of economic

need, however, a more appropriate or less costly local substitute would be incorporated (for example, in food preparation wares, diet, construction materials and wives). We believe that this pattern of Hispanic retention in socially visible areas and incorporation of indigenous traits in technomic areas, is related to the intermarriage of Indian women with Spanish men. This phenomenon of intermarriage (documented both historically and archeologically) was a major difference between the Spanish colonial system and the Anglo colonial

system. It was also, as many other researchers in Latin America have 81

pointed out (Morner 1971; Wolf 1959; Foster 1960), an important

factor in the emergence of a Hispanic-American tradition. In St. Augustine this process began (as it did in New Spain) with the very earliest colonists and continued until the end of the 18th century (Deagan 1973). Regardless of the cultural affiliation or economic status of a domestic site in St. Augustine, the evidence for Indian influence is always most strongly evident in the areas of foodways and subsistence; traditionally women's activities (Deagan in press). The integration of Old World traits; indigenous New World

traits and ''crystallized'' adaptive elements was certainly a major factor in the emergence of a Hispanic-American cultural tradition.

This exhibits an important difference in degree from Anglo-American traditions in North America, which appear to have incorporated abori-

ginal traits to only a limited extent, if at all (see, for example, Noel-Hume 1963; Deetz 1977; South 1977).

A number of unanswered questions remain, however, about these

processes of adaptation and change in the Spantsh colonial cultures

of the Southeast. These questions are relevant to all areas of Spanish colonial activity; and particularly to those in the circumCaribbean area. For example, it is unclear whether the pattern of multi-cultural trait combination observed in Spanish Florida was typical of the earliest colonization attempts, or whether it was the result of applying the accumulated experiences of the Spaniard's first 70 years in the New World. What effect did the more humane policies of the Spanish government toward the New World Indians in

the later Il6th century have on Spanish-Indian interaction?

Another important question concerns the ebb of Spanish power: in what areas would Hispanic~American identification most strongly have manifested itself had the system not been brought abruptly

to an end in Florida? The removal of Spain's trade embargo in 1793,

the economic decline of Spain, and the ascendancy of Anglo-Amertica

certainly impacted the Hispanic-American tradition all over the New World. Such an ebb of infiuence can be seen [In second Spanish period (1783-1821) St. Augustine in the increasing proportion of British

and American items on sites of the early 19th century. Typical of these sites is an admixture of Hispanic, Anglo and African traits, in an approximate proportion of 21%, 29% and 51% respectively

(Zierden 1981). It would be of considerable interest to contrast

this situation with a 19th century Hispanic-American community not in proximity to an Anglo-American area. Another useful comparison would be to an area remaining during the 19th century tn proximity to both a Hispanic-American culture area and an Anglo-American area (such as the American Southwest). Such questions are expected to

help guide the future directions of Spanish colonial archeology tn the Southeast, and also to establish a common ground for colonial archeologists in both the Southeast and the Caribbean. Spanish Colonial Archeology in the Caribbean

Unlike that in the southeastern United States, Spanish colonial archeology in the Caribbean has concentrated from its beginnings primarily upon Spanish towns, and sites occupied by Spaniards or Spanish-Americans. This might be considered almost inevitable, 82

given the number of large and very historically significant Spanish settlements itn the area, among them some of the oldest European cities in the New World.

Until very recently, the work in the Caribbean has concentrated upon historic structures, monumental sites, and the location and identification of Spanish towns. Most frequently, these studies have been in support of restoration and reconstruction activities. A major emphasis of this work has been the depiction and interpretation of the little-known Spanish colonial material assemblages. The islands of the Caribbean which were occupied most intensively

by the Spaniards have also been the sites of the most intensive Spanish colonial archeology in the present century. The Dominican

Republic, Puerto Rico and Cuba have all had active Spanish colonial archeological programs, most often through governmental sponsorship.

In addition to these, other areas of intermittent Spanish occupation such as Haiti, Jamaica andthe offshore islands of Venezuela have also been subject to the archeological study of their Spanish colonial sites. The following discussion will attempt to summarize the major Spanish colonial archeological research in the region, and its major contributions. The earliest reported Spanish colonial archeology in the Caribbean was carried out in the 1930's and 1940's, and was devoted

to the location, identification and testing of the earliest Spanish

contact period towns. In the Dominican Republic, the town of Isabela (founded by Columbus in 1493) was one of the first to be located and tested. Isabela has been the focus of intermittent programs of mapping, testing and preservation until the present time, however no full scale excavations have occurred in recent years. Also located and surface collected has been the site of Concepcion de la Vega, today known as La Vega Vieja. The town was occupied from 1495 until 1562 when it was destroyed by a hurricane in that year (Palm 1952;

Goggin 1968:24).

Recording and preservation of La Vega Vieja's ruins have been an ongoing concern in the Dominican Republic (see Ugarte 1977; Casas

Reales 1980). Excavations were carried out at the site in 1976 (Ortega y Fondue 1978) in the vicinity of the fort, where the authors hypothesized a colono-Indian pottery industry to have occurred (pottery made by Antillean inhabitants, which incorporated both European forms and Chicoide Indian decoration [ibid: 29-31|]). This work has

provided direct evidence for one of the earliest cases of SpanishIndian ceramic syncretism.

Archeological collections have also been made at the site of Santiago de los Caballeros, today known as Jacagua (Palm 1946;

Goggin 1968:29). Also of interest to historical archeology is the study of colonial architecture in present day Santiago (Delgado 1979), near Jacagua.

Santo Domingo itself has been the focus of considerable archeo-

logical activity, particularly in the past decade. The work has provided a baseline of information about colonial period architecture and material culture in the Spanish colonies, developed in the process of gathering information needed forthe major reconstruction and restora83

tion activities in Santo Domingo (Palm 1955; Ortega y Fondeur 1978; Ortega y Valdex 1979; Ortega 1980). Earlier work at the Convento de San Francisco also contributed to these concerns (Council 1975).

Studies of the effects of culture contact, particularly upon the indigenous Indians of the islands, is also an increasing interest

in the colonial archeology of the Dominican Republic (Ortega y Fondeus 1978; Garcia Arevalo 1977).

Restoration projects such as that in Santo Domingo have been an important impetus for colonial archeology in the Spanish Caribbean. San Juan, Puerto Rico is also involved in a major restoration program, with concomitant archeological research (Smith 1965; Figueroa 1981; A. Gus Pantel, personal communication 1979, Tallahassee, Fl.). One

of the earliest instances of colonial archeology in the Caribbean took place at the site of Caparra, near San Juan (Hostos 1938). The excavation of a large stone structure at the site yielded a large and extensive collection of early l6th century domestic material and

was believed by the author to have been the home of Ponce de Leon.

In contrast to Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, most of the information available about Spanish colonial archeology in Cuba is from the excavation of historic period Indian sites (Bani complex

3 associated) (Goggin 1968:34-36:; Rouse 1942; Morales Patino and Perez

de Acevedo 1946). Collections and tests were made at several of these sites during the 1930's and 1940's by Garcia Castaneda, including Yayal (1938) and Pesqueno (1940; 1949). In more recent years, however, a large body of data concerning the Spanish colonial occupation of old Havana has been recovered through the restoration programs of the

Academia de Ciencias and the Museo de Ja Ciudad de la Habana (Romero 1981a, 1981b; Dominquez 1978, 1981).

The potentials of these sites for studying the effects of contact upon the aboriginal populations of the area are obvious, and the topic has been addressed in the literature (Garcia Castaneda 1949, Dominguez 1978). Cuba had particularly close ties to the Spanish colony in Florida, both during the 18th century when the supplies from

Florida were sent from Cuba and troops rotated between the two colonies (Tepaske 1964: Ch. 3) and following the first Spanish period (1763). Most of the refugees who left Florida in 1763 after the colony was ceded to England went to Cuba, where they founded a town of San Agustin de la Florida Nueva (Gold 1969: 77-86). Although Jamaica was an English colony after the mid-1I7th cen-

tury, it was occupied by the Spaniards from the beginning of the 16th century until that time. A number of Spanish colonial period sites have been located and collected in Jamaica, including both historic period Indian sites and European settlements (Goodwin 1946). Perhaps the most archeologically important of these is Sevilla Nueva, founded in 1509 and abandoned by about 1534. Extensive surveys have been made

at this site, both through the auspices of the Jamaica National Trust Commission (1970), and the work of Mr. C. S. Cotter of St. Ann's Bay

(1948; 1970). Excavations took place at the site under Cotter from

1953-1958, locating and mapping the fortified governor's house, gun emplacements, a sugar mill, the church, a road and about 25 dwellings (ibid: 1970: 17-21). Although no specific provenience data was pub-

lished by Cotter, the fact that nearly half of the ceramics recovered 84

at the site were aboriginal suggests that Sevilla Nueva may provide important insights into very early Spanish-Indian interaction patterns. The colony of Nueva Cadiz was founded on the island of Cubagua

off the coast of Venezuela in about 1498, in order to exploit the rich pearl beds in the area which were apparently depleted by the time of the colony's abandonment (Willis 1976). The site was excavated in 1954 by Cruxent and Goggin, and the material analyses reported in

Willis (1976). The site is unique in that it was a rich, single-

product extractive economy, which brought together for a labor pool

large numbers of Indians from different tribal origins. At this site

Willis found no evidence for Spanish-Indian syncretism in the material

assemblage, but rather a strict separation of traits. The distinctions and variations in population and ecology of Spanish sites are rich

and widespread in the Caribbean, and offer an important data base for the cross-cultural testing of hypotheses about adaptive processes.

Another Spanish colony in the Caribbean with an early beginning and anearly end was that of Puerto Real in Haiti. Founded in 1502 on the north coast, the town of Puerto Real was a prosperous cattle raising center until about 1580, when it was abandoned (Lyon 1981). The site of Puerto Real was located and subsequently tested by Dr. William Hodges of Limbe, Haiti (1980). Since 1979, the site has been excavated by the University of Florida under the direction of Charles Fairbanks. Research in Puerto Real has been oriented toward both the ultimate plans for development and interpretation of the site (Willis 1981), as well as toward a number of archeological and anthropological concerns (Marrinan and Hamilton 1981; Fairbanks et al. 1981; Williams 1983. MacEwen 1983; Marrinan 1983; Reitz 1982). The project is test-

ing several hypotheses based on the work in the 16th century sites of St. Augustine, Florida (Deagan 1981), including the question of whether the syncretic Spanish-Indian (and possibly Spanish-Indian-Black) pattern of cultural and material admixture known from St. Augustine (and described above), was typical of the New World Spanish colonies, or

whether this Florida pattern was the result of the Florida colony's particular circumstances, such as the time period, the prevailing political policies, the environmental conditions, and the accumulated knowledge from 70 years of Spanish colonization in the Caribbean.

Manifestations of status variability, hypothesized on the basis of results from the first year's reconnaissance program are being tested at Puerto Real, as are hypotheses concerning possible adjustments in traditional Hispanic diet, foodways, architecture and town planning. Such adjustments are expected to have resulted in response to New World environmental and social conditions.

The research at Puerto Real, carried out as a long term project by a group of multi-disciplinary specialists (historians, archeolo-

gists, and zooarcheologists) should make an important contribution to our understanding of Spanish colonial adaptive practices tn the New World. A clear understanding of this enormous issue will, of course, require carefully recovered data not only from Haiti, but from all over the areas of Hispanic settlement in the New World. Evidence that inter-areal cooperation and information exchange among Spanish

colonial archeologists is increasing can be seen in such recent archeological conferences as the 9th International Congress for the Study of Prehistoric Cultures of the Lesser Antilles, held in 1981 85

in Santo Domtngo; and also the Society for Historical Archeology held in New Orleans in 1981 (see particularly Charlton and Siefert 1981). Just as the North American Bicentennial stimulated a major increase in the archeology of Anglo-America, we may expect that the 1992 celebration of the 500th anniversay of Columbus! discovery of the New World will similarly stimulate Spanish colonial archeology.

The results of such research will be tmportant, not only to Spanish colonial archeologists concerned with the questions discussed in this paper, but also to all archeologists and scholars interested in the processes which shape colonial situations in general. This will be

particularly true if this research is carried out by a multidisciplinary group of scholars interested in the same questions. Historical archeology can provide a unique perspective on early European adaptations to the New World, not achievable through any other discipline.

Such a perspective is possible because of the field's simultaneous

access to both documentary and archeological sources of information

about the earliest colonies. This allows a comparison of the colonist's written depictions of conditions, with the actual by-products of colonial conditions and behavior. Historical archeology

frequently allows a more direct observation of the techno-environmental aspects of colonial cultures than is usually provided by documents. In the process of transplanting Old World traditions to the New World,

these techno-environmental elements must have been among the first aspects of colonial culture to undergo those adaptive changes which ultimately led to the particular Euro-American traditions evident in

later colonial periods.

The study of adaptive change in Spanish colonial culture ap-

pears to be a developing trend in the field. If it is realized, it

will allow the comparison of such processes in the Spanish colonies to those manifested in French-American and British-American areas.

Cross-cultural comparisons such as these will be of critical importance to our understanding of colonial adaptation in general, as well as the development of specific Euro-American cultural traditions.

86

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baker, Henry, 1975, "Archeological Investigations at Fort George, Pensacola, Florida,'’ Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Miscellaneous Report Series #34, Tallahassee. Boyd, Mark, Hale Smith and John Griffin, 1952, Here They Once Stood:

the Tragic End of the Apalachee Indians, University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Brain, Jeffrey, Alan Toth and Antonio Rodriguez Buckingham, 1972, “‘Ethnohistoric Archaeology and the de Soto Entrada into the Lower Mississippi Valley,'' Conference on Historic Sites Archeology Papers, Vol. 7, PP- 232-89.

Casas Reales, 1980, '‘Objectos y Ambientes de la Concepcion de la Vega," Catologo de una Exposicion. Museo Casas Reales, Santo Domingo.

Charlton, Thomas and Donna Seifert (organizers), 1981, ''Hispanic Impact and Regional Development in North America,'' Symposium,

Society for Historical Archeology, New Orleans.

Chatelaine, Verne, 1941, The Defenses of Spanish Florida 1563-1763, Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 4511.

Cotter, C. S., 1948, ''The Discovery of the Spanish Carvings at Seville,'' The Jamaican Historical Review, Vol. 1 #3, Kingston, pp. 227-33. ---]970, "Sevilla Nueva: The Story of an Excavation,'' Jamaica Journal, Vol. 4(2) (June), pp. 15-22. Council, R. Bruce, 1975, Archaeology of the Convento de San Francisco, MA Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Cumbaa, Steven, 1975, Patterns of Resource Use and Cross-cultural Dietary Change in the Spanish Colonial Period, Ph.D. Dissertation,

University of Florida, Gainesville.

Deagan, Kathleen, 1972, ''Fig Springs: The Mid-Seventeenth Century in

Florida,'' Historical Archaeology 6, pp. 23-46.

---1976, "Archeology at the National Greek Orthodox shrine: Microchange in 18th Century Criollo Culture,'' Florida State University Notes in Anthropology, Vol. 13.

---1978b, "Cultures in Transition: Assimilation and Fusion Among the Eastern Timucua,!' in Tacachale, Milanich and Proctor, eds.,

University Presses of Florida, Gainesville

---1981, Annual Performance Report to NEH: ''An Archeological Investi-

gation of 16th Century Spanish Florida.'' Florida State University, Tallahassee. .

-=-]983,+) Spanish St. Augustine: of a Colonial Creole oe rere erenceTheAArchaeology A Community, Academic Press, New York.

Deetz, James, 1977, In Small Things Forgotten, Doubleday, New York. 87

Delgado, Osiris, 1979, Arquitectura de Santiago de los Caballeros, Fundacion Garcia-Arévalo, Sto. Domtngo.

Dominguez, Lourdes, 1978, ''La Transculturacion en Cuba'! (s. XVI-XVI1)

Cuba Arqueologica Santiago de Cuba; Editorial Oriente, pp. 33-50.

---1981, "Arqueologia del sitio colonial Casa de la Obrapia o de Calvo de la Puerta, Haban Vieja,'' Santiago #4 (March), Santiago de Cuba, pp. 63-82.

Eichholtz, James, 1981,''Field Survey of a Spanish Colonial Lime Kiln in Puerto Rico,''Paper presented at the 9th International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Man in the Antilles (Sto. Domingo) Fairbanks, Charles H., 1975, ''Backyard Archeology as a Research Strategy,'' Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology Papers, Vol. 10. Fairbanks, Charles, Rochelle Marrinan, Gary Shapiro, Bonnie MacEwen, and Alicia Kemper, 1981, Collected Papers from the Puerto Real

Project, 1981 Season. Manuscript Report, University of Florida, Gainesville. Also in press, Conference on Historic Sites Archeology Papers, 1981.

Figueroa-Lugo, Jesus, 1981, 'Arqueologta de la Iglesia San Jose, Viejo

San Juan, Puerto Rico.'' 9th International Congress for

the Study of Pre-Columbian Man in the Antilles (Sto. Domfngo).

Foster, George, 1960, Culture and Conquest, Viking Fund Publication in Anthropology #27.

Garcia Arévalo, Manuel, 1977, ''Influencia de la Dieta Indo-Hisp4anfca

Taina.'' 1977 Congreso Internacional para el estudio de las culturas precolombinas de las Antillas Menores. (Caracas, Venezuela).

60. |

Garcia Castaneda, José, 1938, ''Asiento Yayal,'! Revista de Arqueologia 1, Havana, pp. 44-58.

---]940, "'Asiento Pesquero,'' Revista de Arqueologia 4 Havana, pp. 55---1949, "'La transculturaci6n Indo-espanola en Holguin," Revista de Arqueologia y Etnologia 8-9, pp. 195-205.

Gjessing, Frederick, John Griffin, J. Carver Harris, Albert Manucy,

Hale Smith, J. T. Van Campen, Doris Wiles, 1962, ''The Evolution of the Oldest House,'!' FSU Notes in Anthropology #7, Tallahassee.

Goodwin, William B., 1946, Spanish and English Ruins in Jamaica, Boston.

Griffin, John, 1958, "End Products of Historic Sites,’ Reprinted in Historical Archaeology, R. Schuyler, ed., Baywood,

Farmingdale, pp. 20-22. |

Goggin, John, 1968, ''Spanish Majolica in the “ew World,'' Yale University Publications in Anthropology #72. 88

Gold, Robert, 1969, Borderland Empires tn Transition, Southern Itllinots University, Carbondale. Harrington, J. C., Albert Manucy and John Griffin, 1955, "Archeological Excavations in the Courtyard of the Castillo de San Marcos,

st. Augustine Florida, Florida Historical Quarterly 34 (2).

Hodges, William, 1980, Puerto Real Sources, (Manuscript) Documentary Sources on Puerto Real, Haiti, Hospital le Bon Samaritatn, Limbe, Haiti.

Hostos, Adolfo de, 1938, Investigaciones histOricas, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Jamaica National Trust Commission, 1970, ''Future Prospects for Sevilla Nueva,'' Jamaica Journal (June) Vol. 4, #2, pp. 13-14. Jones, Calvin B., 1972, ''Spanish Mission Sites Located and Test Excavated,'' Archives and History News 3, Dept. of State, Tallahassee, pp. 61-62. ---1973, "A Semi-Subterranean Structure at Mission San Joseph de Ocuyo,

Jefferson County, Florida,'' Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 3, Tallahassee, pp. 1-50.

King, Julia, 1981, An Archaeological Investigation of 17th Century St. Augustine, MA Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Larson, Lewis, 1980, ''The Spanish on Sapelo,'' in Sapelo Papers: Researches in the History and Prehistory of Sapelo Island, Georgia, D. Juengst, ed., West Georgia College, Carrolton. Leitch-Wright, J., 1970, Anglo-Spanish Rivalry in Eastern North America, Georgia Press, Athens.

Loucks, L. Jill, 1979, Political and Economic Interactions Between Spaniard and Indians: Archeological and Ethnohistorical Perspectives of the Mission System in Florida, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesvilie. Lyon, Eugene, 1981, Research on a Spanish Town on the North Coast of

Hispaniola, Manuscript on file, University of Florida, Gainesville.

MacMurray, Carl, 1976, Archeolonrical Observations at the Naval Air

Station, Pensacola, Florida, Report on file, Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahassee.

MacMurray, Judith, 1973, The Definition of the Ceramic Complex at San Juan del Puerto, MA Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Marrinan, Rochelle, 1982, ''Test Excavations at Building B (Area 2)

Puerto Real, Haiti.'' Project report on file, Florida State

Museum, University of Florida, Gainesville. |

Marrinan, Rochelle and Jennifer Hamilton, 1981, ''The University of

Florida's Puerto Real Project, Haiti.'' Paper presented at the

Society for Historical Archeology Conference, New Orleans. 89

Mc. Ewen, Bonnie, 1983, Spanish Colonial Adaptation on Hispaniola, MA Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Merritt, James D., 1977, Excavations of a Coastal Eastern Timucua Village in Northeast Florida, MA Thesis, fF! ida State University, Tallahassee.

Milanich, Jerald, 1971,''Surface Information from the Prestew | Stte of the San Pedro de Mocamo Mission,'' Conference on Historic Sites Archeology Papers 5, pp. 114-121.

---]972, ''Excavations at the Richardson Site, Alachua County, Florida: An Early 17th Century Potano Indian Villaqde,'"' Bureau of Historic

Sites and Properties Bulletin 2, Florida Dept. of State, Talla

hassee.

---1978, ''The Western Timucua: Patterns of Acculturation and Change." in Tacachale, Milanich and Proctor, eds., University Presses of Florida, Gainesville Milanich, Jerald and William Sturtevant, 1972, The 1613 Contes canar ia of Frey Francisco Pareja, Florida Division of Archives and History, Tallahassee. Morales Patino, Oswaldo y Roberto Pérez de Acevedo, 1946, ''E1 per todo de transculturaciOn indo-hispanica,'' Revista de Arqueoloagia v Etnologta 1, Havana, pp. 5-20.

Morner, Magnus, 1972, Race Mixture in the History of Latin Americs, Little, Brown and Co., Boston. Noel-Hume, Ivor, 1963, Here Lies Virginia, Knop!, New York.

Ortego, Elpidio, 1980, Introduccién a la Loza Comin a Alfarerfa er el Peritodo Colonial de Sto. Domingo, Fundacion Ortega Alvar... Inc., Serie Cientifica 3, Sto. Domingo. a

Ortega, Elpidio y Carmen Fondeur, 1978a, La Argueologia de los Mon. mentos HistOricos de Sto. Domingo, Universidad del Este,

ll ———

Serie Cientifica 7.

~--1978b, Estudio de la Ceramica del Per iodo Indo-Hispano de la Antigua Concepcion de la Vega, Fundacion Crtoga-Alvarez, [me., Serie Cientifica 1, Santo Domingo. ---1979, Arqueologia de la Casa del Cord6n, Fundacion Ortedqa-Alvarey, Inc. Serie Cientifica IL, Santo Domingo. Ortego, Elpidio y Maria Luisa Valdez, 1979, ‘Informe de las Excavacivnres Arqueologicas de la Casa de Gorjon,"' Boletin del Museo del Hombre Dominicano 12.

Palm, Erwin W., 1945, "Excavations of La Isabela, White Man's First Town in the Americas,'! Acta Americana 3, pp. 298-303.

90 ;

---1946, "Las ruinas de Jacagua, antigua cuidad de Santiago de los Caballeros,'' Boletin del Archivo General de la Naci6n 9, Ciudad Trujillo (Santa Domingo) pp. 93-100.

---1952, "La Fortaleza de la Concepcioén de la Vega,'' Memoria del V Congreso Historico Municipal Interamericano 2, pp. 115-18. ---1955, Los Monumentos Arquitectdénicos de la Espanola (2 vols.), Publicaciones de la Universidad Autonoma de Santo Domingo.

Parry, J. and P. Sherlock, 1968, A Short History of the West Indies, St. Martin's Press, New York. Poe, Charles, 1979, ''Pattern and Status Recognition among 18th Century

Criollos of St. Augustine, Florida,'' paper presented at Society for Historical Archeology Conference, Nashville, Tennessee.

Reitz, Elizabeth, 1979, Spanish and British Subsistence Strategies at St. Augustine, Florida and Frederica, Georgia, 1563-1783, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. ---]1982, "Analysis of Vertebrate Fauna from Area 19, Puerto Real,

Haiti.'' Project report on file, Florida State Museum, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Romero, Leandro, 198 1a, "La Habana Arqueologica,'' Revolucion y Cultura 107 (Julio) Habana.

---]981b, ''Sobre las evidencias arqueologicas de contacto y transculturacion en el ambito cubano,'' Santiago 44 (Diciembre) pp. 71-108. Rouse, Irving, 1942, "Archeology of the Maniabon Hills, Cuba,'' Yale University Publications in Anthropology 26.

St. Augustine Historical Society. (n.d.), The Parish Records of the Cathedral of St. Augustine. St. Augustine Historical Society, photostats. Seibert, Wilbur, 1940, ''The Departure of the Spaniards and Other Groups from East Florida,'' Florida Historical Quarterly 19(2), p. 145. Shephard, Steven, 1975, The Geronimo de Hita y Salazar Site: A Study of Criollo Culture in Colonial St. Augustine, MA Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Shurbutt, Thomas and Janet Gritzner, 1979, "Historical Archaeology of the Colonial Southeastern Atlantic Coast: A Bibliography,"' Florida Journal of Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Gainesville, Florida. Smith, Hale G., 1956,''The European and the Indian,'' Florida Anthropological Society Special Publication #4.

~--1962, "El Morro,'' Florida State University Notes in Anthropology 6.

91

Smith, Hale G. and Robert Steinbach, 1963, Roque 226, FSU Notes in

Anthropology 9, Tallahassee. 7

Smith, Marvin and C. Hudson (organizers), 1980, Symposium: ''!The Sixteenth Century Southeast.'' Symposium held at the Southeastern Archeological Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.

South, Stanley, 1977, Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, Academic Press, New York.

---1980, ''The Discovery of Santa Elena,'' Institute of Archeology and Anthropology Research Manuscript Series #165, Columbia.

Symes, Martha and M. E. Stephens, 1965, "'A-272: The Fox Pond Site,"'

Florida Anthropologist 18, pp. 65-72.

Tepaske, John, 1964, The Governorship of Spanish Florida, 1700-1763, Duke University Press, Durham.

Tesar, Louis, 1980, ''Fort Walton and the de Soto Entrada,'! paper presented at the Southeastern Archeological Conference, New Orleans Louisiana.

Ugarte, Maria, 1977, ''Trabajan en rescate de ruinas de la Vega Vieja, Ciudad que Florecio en los Comienzos del Siglo XVI,'' Periddico El Caribe, Sto. Domingo, February 5.

Williams, Maurice, 1983, ''Sub Surface Patterning at Puerto Real: A Sixteenth Century Spanish Town on Haiti's North Coast.'' Project report on file, Florida State Museum, University of Florida, Gainesville. Willis, Raymond, 1976, The Archeology of 16th Century Nueva Cadiz,

MA Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.

---1981, "Current Research at Puerto Real,'' tn Soctety for Historical Archeology Newsletter 14, #2.

Wolf, Eric, 1959, Sons of the Shaking Earth, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Zierden, Martha, 1981, The Archeology of a Second Spanish Period

Homesite in St. Augustine, Florida, Masters thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

92

D THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF SPANISH COLONIAL SITES IN CALIFORNIA

Robert L. Hoover ; INTRODUCTION

Among the historically known examples of directed culture change,

that of the enculturation of Native Americans into the European lifeway is probably the most significant in terms of its implications for global development. Of all the great early colonial empires that were involved in the transformation of Amerindian lifeways, none was geographically more extensive or systematic in its methods than that of Spain. Spain, the empire that dominated European colonial expansion during its iInittal phase tn the Western Hemisphere, continued to play a major role as a colonial power until the loss of its mainland American colonies around 1820. In the interim, Spain undertook the single largest and longest program of enculturation ever attempted. While the results and nature of this program are still not completely understood, the cultural transformations which were wrought varied in terms of time, space, method, and effect. A complex combination of religious establishments, civil settlements, and military outposts were utilized variously on the different frontiers of the Spanish New World to

achieve the Hispanization of the land. Of all the regions in the

Spanish Empire undergoing this process, California has been one of the best-studied and most controversial regions for historians, ethnographers, and archaeologists. For convenience, the cultural development of Hispanic California can be divided into Protohistoric, Spanish and Mexican Periods.

THE PROTOHISTORIC PERIOD (1542-1769)

The Protohistoric Period was a time of occasional European

maritime exploration of the California coast. It began with the visit of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, who Viceroy Mendoza had sent on an tI1-

equipped expedition to find a northwest passage to the Philippines

(Wagner 1929). Cabrillo died of injuries and was buried on

Santa Rosa Island. A stone, recovered in 1901 by Philip Mills Jones, may be Cabrillo's grave marker, though this issue is surrounded by controversy (Heizer 1972).

Sir Francis Drake visited the California coast briefly in15/9

during his circumnavigation of the world aboard Golden Hind. Drake's

motive for landing in California after very successfully raiding Spanish commerce to the south is not clear. Perhaps his vessel needed repairs. Drake may have been quite serious in claiming the land, which he called Nova Albion, for future English colonization. 93

Unfortunately, Drake's journal has disappeared, probably being destroyed deliberately. The only contemporary account is provided by the journal of his chaplain, Francis Fletcher, although it was disavowed by Drake. We are certain, however, that Drake landed on the coast of Marin County, just north of San Francisco Bay, on June 17, 1579 and remained ashore for a month while refitting his ships (Heizer 1947; 1974). The site of his landfall was probably Drake's Bay. In 1937, a picnicker recovered a plate of brass at nearby Corte Madera with an inscription identifying it as having been left by Drake in 1599. A great deal of controversy has raged around its authenticity (Heizer 1974). It is now on display at the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Further Spanish exploration in California was carried out in conjunction with the annual voyage of the Manila Galleon between the Philippines and Acapulco. The voyage took eight months and resulted in a high casualty rate among the crew. California was viewed as a Suitable place for the galleon to stop on the last leg of its journey for water and fresh vegetables. Thus, Sebastian Rodriquez Cermeno sailed into Drake's Bay in 1595 but missed the

Golden Gate in the fog. His galleon was later wrecked and its cargo lost (Wagner 1929: 154-168). So as not to risk another Manila Galleon, Sebastian Vizcaino was sent north from Mexico on a special expedition

in 1602 to find the best possible port. The San Diego, Santa Barbara,

and Monterey areas were explored. However, Vizcaino was ignored on his return to Mexico and his mapmaker was even accused of forgery (Wagner 1929: 180-273). The Manila Galleons seldom took advantage

of California shores, as they were too near the end of their voyages. The most tantalizing aspect of the Protohistoric Period in California has to do with the native coastal population. Descriptions of the aborigines were brief, distorted, and contain many contradictions. Evidence from the Chumash region of the Santa Barbara Channel indicates that native culture was extremely complex, with regional

and district chiefdoms, distinct hereditary social stratification,

and an enormous population for hunters/gatherers. These characteristics were confirmed recently by Chumash oral traditions (Hudson 1977). Perhaps the sporadic contact of Europeans with coastal groups had a much more important impact beyond the sparse occurrence of artifacts of metal, glass, and ceramics tn a few archaeological sites. By the end of the Protohistoric Pertod, disease could have been introduced

and taken its toll. Indeed, the native coastal population in 1769

seems much reduced from the estimates of 1542. A demographic disas-

ter might well have resulted itn the relative simplification of culture which the Spanish noted in 1769 and later. Indeed, this period resembles a continuing play of which the audience gets only brief glimpses when the curtain {ts momentarily raised.

THE SPANISH PERIOD (1769-1820)

Spain controlled much of the Americas for 250 years before the

first land exploration of California. Initial exploration and sbse-

quent control took place only in the coastal ranges south of 39° north latitude. In only five decades of control, the Spanish established four types of settlements within their area of control--a chain “sf 2] Franciscan missions, four military prestdtos, three towns or pue/os, and a few privately granted cattle runchos. 9k

The missions were established between 1769 and 1823, all but three being founded before 1800. These missions, as the primary instruments of the Spanish state in California, were designed to Christianize and Hispanize the native population. Governmental authorities originally believed that the diverse hunting and gathering Indians could be transformed into Spanish-speaking, Catholic agricultural villagers within a decade. Mission lands would then be divided among the Indians and the Franciscans could move on to be replaced by secular clergy. This conception was based on an entirely false estimate of the rate of enculturation. However, the missions did provide a Spanish buffer against Russian and British interests in the Pacific Northwest of North America. California missions were generally places where the converted native population was concentrated while undergoing religious instruction and occupational training. This factor removed most of the Indians from the outlying land, freeing it for the award of private land grants.

Each mission varied in architectural details, but most consisted of a hallow quadrangle of cloisters, corridors, a church, and

work or storage spaces. This complex usually surrounded a central garden. Churches were simple, consisting of a long narrow nave with

a choir loft at one end and an altar at the opposite end. A few

churches were cruciform in plan. Beyond the main quadrangle, the misston might include tanneries, a lavanderta or washing pool, water ditches and pipeline, stables, quarters for the neophyte Indians, lime kilns, buildings for weaving or pottery production, kilns, soap vats, carpenter's and blacksmith's workshops, etc. These outbuildings have the greatest potential for providing details of mission economic life. Beyond the site of the main mission complex, some establishments had complex water supply systems, including aqueducts and dams, or iso-

lated but associated ranches or farms for stock raising and grain production. Such settlements are essential to a complete understanding of the economic operation of the self-sufficient mission community, but they have experienced the greatest threat from land alteration schemes. The territory of one mission extended to the lands of its

sister establishments. Isolated aststenctas or chapels were estab-

lished by most missions to serve the outlying population of neophytes. They were visited periodically by the mission priests. Each mission was occupied by two priests, approximately five soldiers with a corporal, and several other Hispanic craftsmen and overseers. It will be useful to examine specific mission sites for examples of recent research, beginning with the most scientifically promising sites and continuing to those with least archaeological potential. Mission La Purisima Concepcion was first built on the standard quadrangle plan and flourished before being destroyed by an earth-

quake and flood in 1812. The original mission site is largely occupied by a residential development and a railroad cut, but a few vacant lots exist within the original quadrangle. The area was surveyed and tested by Costello (1975), who utilized historical photographs in her successful reconstruction of the building plan. The mission itself was removed to a site five miles to the north in 1812, where the church, padres! quarters, and shop buildings were arranged

in a lineal plan, and was occupied until the 1830's. :

La Purisima was the first site utilizing federal funds and a staff of multi-disciplinary professionals during the 1930's (Hageman 95

MISSIONS OF CALIFORNIA DATE OF FOUNDING

1. San Diego de Alcala 1769 2. San Carlos Borromeo (Carmelo) 1770 5. San Antonio de Padua 177) 4. San Gabriel Arcangel 177)

O- San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 1772

6. San Francisco de Asis (Dolores) 1776

(. San Juan Capistrano 1776 G. Santa Clara de Asis 1777

2. San Buenaventura 1782

10. Santa Barbara 1786 Il. La Purisima Concepcion 1787

12. Santa Cruz | 1791 13. La Soledad 1791 14. San Jose de Guadalupe 1797

15. San Juan Bautista 1797 16. San Miguel Arcange] 1797 17. San Fernando Rey 1797

18. San Luis Rey de Francia 1798

19. Santa Inés 1804 20. San Rafael Arcangel 1817

421. San Francisco Solano (Sonoma) 1823 PRESIDIOS OF CALIFORNIA |

A. San Diego 1769 B, Monterey } 1770

C. San Francisco 1776 D, Santa Barbara 1782 ____ PUEBLOS OF CALIFORNIA

Qa. San Jose de Guadalupe , 1777

b. Los Angeles 1781 C. Branciforte | 1797

NOTE: Numbers and letters correspond to their equivalents on the map

of California.

96

N

21

*

MC oe 14 C

See.

2 \w 12 Oo yas

1

B 13 *3

*5

% 16

1h y19

Qmiles400 QQ ¥7 18 . To g et? 44 D

2a CA “eb

NN : fie

eR— al % . 8;ai eee Bae go ,ee ge EOE SePe Es naeao) LOS PSE ait neSpe eel ae ye koe Won Fas oO) aa 4.Es ap Sef ae so—a ERS Baca eea ee Hsrepoietic: ; ;og uae mn Ds,gala. ey 4 me ame, eMa.i aT US Ba hoggEET ee LR Gd: iby; Boys Ge pe a ae

Sg lll > oan + 5 iene a es eee i; . ee ee ee BS eee haut eA ee ee. i iea be all ree Eaiad : Be Ashgae Cee ae

Oe By ByfepkNS mn. a he or Mo ; ‘ aPie ee ch SeeeeSe tts ah aSaae6oy

heppstbee, oe a” ue + :3ent2SyyTent a*, > ataePie #i ail ; a.om at aMe ' *. it*ye ae :emia thics* Fee as2“ le ‘ey. i et as ¥ele 2 ts: 9*}' i,- sa "gett ‘@ ae ist Rte .~ yg pF,om a oo Pane Pe ee aia Pr . ai , ? Fi ra ey . + ae “ne gr a cg Ps RES WERE na, E ge ge a.

iie,4ge . Pa 7]‘un, aFas. eei iyo, |& ihe eeSh iy te ieat Soe ete E = 'BAY jue ba ae te,."oD om 2gee ae vyige ;Ba a we ay te is ynae Be ori,oteRt we ibe rtSenn i1oh as — ne — re ae ee a. oe ee, oot gee oa ot a io . ch | sou ; te 4,vjey ee =. aie ‘Ted . a ie oe eee 4 Sea, ‘Fv: a ; wo: ee ey, ah “ue ety i P (aa 2 . 1h ps ie 4 . we ska’ at * Fi a EE sw i” ak ee, i i % 4 : . “ a ‘ “ ee, 7 gee Sore ge "ae “ee. ole Fay GaP: [|SO «nh 8inew EE | ae dla AE te oo Ae .“ aan rome | ae i1A i ii 37 ne: ne Se, wre ah. a“heSie a1wn Pt |*AS Hi 6BM 1A %% aq«.4 met, We ”a,-Ae eH! eR '.if on Pergo 2 ,Be FAs tty i My ita.rs Ed eea seed, 1| Be Fy e. .‘CO “en OR ™paona! beenya, | co ae¢eety ome » i, A reeeSe ca ae pee "EM vt . 4ne “,¥ 5an y% "™ we Fiat al gha. 7EE Fi + RS 4 oe RO Re a 4a,pore 6%, ©fog Ph is“4 eee oe “ent eee cece ad oa a ‘yailogy ee Bat ee +i i 4A-a.

0 we a OG ¢ : ae ' 1 me 2 id |a" eesag: ee % st. 2 Sg a ee. '} 2” Po a“ee “a i ty shi‘ha! id ry iA £:a :. Cc aeo° eee ‘: on x+ae 'my! ee ch‘3: aS ge Py leCah ay ee 5 , yo ee. 2 Eg eae * i ae + ao o cee. Sh ay? ~tee ’ nav, Bee OR” *er % —e 4: Seng am 1 yee iene . “Rapaets oo io.re 7 ‘7 A, aBe4 4ri2M ‘ai aTt; .ne Ea7—° i he Pa au hiePa’ Rie k ysweseoe. ,ae‘ke Oem io; . br4 a¢“> . ~. ¥ioe eedaall ot %a aeemhgeapaa.: at *, ; . aeaeVon ¥ bmt ee ee a Py "

*ok’' ie .eg4yt .: ;mIeeast nf ry .. < aie4- OF whe i ag < 6Sh ge ae oe ie: ,bec 72dime ‘ a “~ aeee. of en

’ ‘ BeA ¥ 4he '# 'SF wh er oe ath Ls as pes es i” aiha a tye ad3.vSer PaEA are! : ‘: Wy

3% eaeoo iONSET Be gs Seceeee eee Ss *payee " oe SSEeC eee slaRcerFSee Seeee ,rrrrrr—sr~—~”r—”—COC—C—COC—Cr~—C*SC—“C‘“C‘( Ceee MaaERE. os nun SSR ic ee aaa aT

Tat tea SL Bilgtt Nag SO ee am Ff tae AP hay ier hioo a' we CSESS eeNaat Ss BSSRS NR CGee naeel PR nS : any REN APRS pce ake eae So BOR ee BAS BUS SS 228 EEaSes ,‘het pe ve hy | ad ee Cm s—sC ee fy SPS Ute Siew ah. — -.—rr~—~rsrsS=s—SsasSeiazaVSCS re :“ we, ' a (OR aLae one . ie ' Bt So ESE IS SHES RN ROAR SG ee ee Se See ee ec ie en SeRia rr—~———=Ci, SOP Ne ee Reread “Af vateea qAySN Agee ReBaas eS OS. PRS ENG SNe

: ' con kw ee,ESN, Angi, EK FRO eser— =eh,|. "oa .:" ="'vs “Me ae oe ta oe ROSNER oe wo hes ae 4 ‘ a “BSS ck SS a rr AN gOS REO .SS“ay ‘oN Fy wa Se rr eS ‘ ' t ' A. ERR ENS cet SBN oa RO RS SSBe SEO REE NNSoe SERRE SERS soe ae Mh a ae so Ree ea ty ae “ eK. ERS Se RS Se Sse mit ut =. ER. RRS RES “OURS cna RRS AC RE BORN Rr ' ‘ =, of! BAN SE BRU ar Ra NS NCS AR ee A RS SR ESR RN 4g TOR,SSS > Ree Set ES pe eeSERRE Sera ESSNS ELS .">‘ "aa Fae bh oe Sa ae eae na AES eo RAE eRe ORS ESTE

oS # ORE ee8 BE hySERRE eGSO ” i "fe :ee ekxECR GEeS ES EIes = oe rae‘we E :é ,4% ites. TT"ak eS >Thoth ee Ntemnens a. “gsi dS iae. - _si. We Sa aed & Sarai! he, x aaah : ol .. A ; Ns ti etrr an Sen

eed ae, oa ee vie gh , \] * Christanna . in 1716 in 1/16.

iS]Fort or h ited bquyr wood's vis Figure pot swofriend John Fontaine, who

|||i 7x:8©||2|—— |w2|Io | ESA a Ia| 1s

t---- ee HK + +---—--+

|— =gS . aA 4 oN Gt e (27 st 4? wset2 ow EF oF “8 a2an Caeeg >+ 2 EG ee ye |3 8>:° * BEES ~ SsOey ~ EG ° ¢-°

|||»;mo s2 ‘iS&;° w 28S al -= ae yo eeogo” to es“ye ee ;Nahe .pre oe ee th ‘| eo he tae” was . . aa Bugeey 4 wn dh ' goes ye onde fee — Pe yh ag a. a oF SRARRE oe Onan a Fi ., ea eS ger gy Pay oe ‘aa nes : ‘ ‘. iBe bonOS} Se ee oe ™ Pea a “4 .‘ie Se Ss

ae a.po SEES Rc :. Rts ei rr ee ee See eeNUE .GeosSS teSENSO we iS. “> Mice ORGS See :

‘Sy ee ee sh Woe .Pd an Tes ‘BR oa SY aae Shey . tae »SRS SAS nage Shs *ner gga

**

ee iehbibinanbi rfet? eA wg SQ Tan rh} a Ps we tatg"y eee igri ,or.we? , gs ney aan .‘a! es ps gg ftBrae .| ae iteys ata}*" -:on .‘Jee war wont *+hata “er. aaa Pe oe aeniieloen erme wopn We as re, itms meet wae eS “oore Pari tall pages des To, ve3iege Fis ee aaly rt Ove yaa Te eo . ah .pgwoo PPT ol .7en *i"gat reatl i.%ee, ee ty *% wa Pe-Ra, ey an a, y aga Rib oh om Wee ae , ' . hee Te ‘ . fe sen hil ie. . ™. coer ae we . oot " er.’ ae rh Pies. or wi on. a .? yo rar ..A we aoe 1PON cy sank) ‘ Ho .*soe . >ok) . MB .ott "Pe. i ,; ee gl pianoe ™-, = aa SERS Lheos°' sgog peep wat vt‘ 4So. ae ce tt. oe wiaeal . sgh Mi ' : eos ™ ‘ st alee oe" be Be wore we a.Mok . feu ms awey ee OT are "ues et. ”See heshoe, Beh, awe ‘ re, aes.ON . .v4..‘ey? .'4 mw — . -complete . 7 | excavation. t~t Figure 9,oe Feature 15 after

CQ- te*ee ai oo a! gts sass o> act Ra

’ ely Lo wtieDoak Ukeages yates 2BeSe = dy waft woo an os ae ies: ee thaaeAeeRat bi iePA eeete eee2 a. fo re

cage fo eat ge a asaad of agf . Rex & 7 eat i : . et . | er og ara Sp rhe ek ag : Ce Nea Oe ot Sage so eS aS lil a re be Ne ; Marae ‘Soy . SX ik .SS aye a >ba ‘. ‘gee! sd ” bebeR44 Bsre“wR rthae xteat — tee om et lt Br edits Tyo ec. e Ry < o ry ogee, * . RO SS x NY a < ~ a BOSS x € a a. anh EC ASS _ . & ee BS “a ‘ fu F cS SERS N s : SS Ee eee RyCN Pe ¥). gen Rf RRS Mer Rr CRS \; a. ¥F

iee sige ceus, Siea

: ete wo}

ag ‘ Ae vA |Br

vse ee ph Shae Sy

‘hytong eee ae

te NR 4

a“ . ‘a ea 2ta fe RYNY iP wee

. or . : SS, puunye coe pie 3 aS *

* ne e

ee scpmmaeiaae cuban evtrone vite ro at i didi — . : C m Ss |

or " smecetenmenenceemniense ‘ . *

: asp . ssa , sos gn cE eam ecemeipeerantmyeeer ae RETR HR S { Nn Ss Pe eenees 1 eveeacornct . . coe ach eS See Rnb

Fy i f F Chri dj

“tqure 10. Small brass finds from Fort ristanna, including a tinkler (far left), brass scrap, cotter pin, and leather harness ornaments.

151

te er

xs |

aae5, ogFbo ms ee aa ‘ age 2 eS aie a ' ba Beth

ee ee aia

$a ont pe pears San

ee a a Patino pg panes ee

B >. "4 - Se ° aie:ianf vffa’ Rha

Bee Ee a SS ag 8 ae ee a c eins r a f | nh Ss.

—_aa

Figure 11. A jew's harp, buckles, and fish hook from Fort Christanna.

0 eee ncn gs a B g

|||

“sn emo i eee eg Se evan prem ae am I —"

oe _ = a ins. cm S. a TT

Figure 12. Weapons related material from Fort Christanna.

Top left: wing nut. Top right: breech plug.

Middle: lead shot. Bottom: unfinished ramrod fragment. 152

8. THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COLONIAL AUSTRALIA

R. fan Jack

The material remains of colonial society in Australia have only recently been the object of informed concern. Professional Australian historians have been preoccupied almost exclusively with the library

and have rarely ventured into the field. Studies of politics and

economics have largely avoided discussing non-literary or non-oral sources. The doyen of Australian historians of mining began his clas-

Sic book: .

Across Australia are ruins and scars of a lost age. Amidst anthills a Cornish boiler lies in the sun,

in low red ranges an iron chimney spreads its long evening shadow. Long tropical grass conceals a barrow

wheel and the rubble of a miner's fireplace. On old goldfields small holes and mounds of clay cover river Flats like a vast graveyard. (Blainey 1969:1)

lt is evocative prose, but none of this evidence is used in

The Rush That Never Ended and no one reading that book would readily

discover what there is still to find today on the minina fields whose history is so magisterially analysed. The best academic account of early farming in Australia is a very good book indeed: all the areas discussed lie within an easy daytrip of the University of Sydney where Professor Fletcher teaches, yet he has made no attempt to do any field-work and has resisted all my efforts in involve him in such expeditions (Fletcher 1976). Still more recently, the same historian has written the authoritative ac~count of a prominent colonial figure, Sir John Jamison (Fletcher 1979), but was not moved to inspect the excavation of the foundations of Jamison's country mansion-house some ninety minutes drive away.

The examples of Blainey and Fletcher are used in no spirit of criticism and most other academic historians of Australia have shared

their lack of interest in material evidence. This attitude has also,

until the last decade, induced a fairly general academic snobbery which looks down on local history, and local history throughout the world has been important in fostering historical archaeoloay. For a

variety of reasons, colonial Australia did not produce the sort of Anglican clergy, common lawyers or country squires who created the

English tradition of local history-writing; and only in the last few years has the university community begun to see the validity of a local approach to historical problems. The greatest living Australian historian, Sir Keith Hancock, the biographer of Smuts, the author of a still influential short history of Australia (Hancock 1930) and professor for many years in the prestigious Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, gave a certain cachet 153

to local studies by his book on the Monaro district near Canberra which appeared in 1972 (Hancock 1972). But it is characteristic of Australlan academic conservatism that Hancock's study of man's impact on a region which he came to know intimately has been more influential in North America than in his native country.

The local history which has thriven is a less exciting thing than

Hancock's vision of the Monaro, but it is becoming soundly based and

is gradually converting the historical profession to seeing as re-

spectable studies which involve geography and archaeology as much as documentary history. The Victorian Historical Conference held at the University of Melbourne in 1965 discussed the theme 'Local and Regional

History'. Nine years later Weston Bate, then still at the University

of Melbourne, now foundation professor at Deakin University, and the author of a major study of the gold-mining town of Ballarat (Bate 1978),

found it still necessary to counter ‘a tendency to denigrate local history' at the Local History seminar held at Subiaco in Western Australia (Stannage 1974: 18). In 1977 the Australian Historical

Society held a conference in Wagga Waaga, N.S.W., on regional history and this approach, which is much less sympathetic to material remains, has gathered some ground, particularly at Monash University in Victoria and at the University of Queensland. The main-line interest in

local studies ts particularly concentrated instead at Armidale in

northern New South Wales, where Dr. Gilbert has established a highly productive Historical Resources Centre at Armidale College of Advanced

Education (e.g. Gilbert and Driscoll! 1974; Gilbert 1980); at the

Darling Downs Institute for Advanced Education in Queensland where Dr.

French ts hoping to launch an Australian Journal of Local History (French 1980); and at the University of Sydney, which has pioneered the teaching of colonial archaeology as. such (Jack 1977, 1980b).

The specifically archaeological approach to colonial studies is a product only of the last decade. Although there are impressive schools of classical archaeology and of prehistory in Australian universities and although it is from such academic archaeologists that the first excavators of colonial sites came, there has been massive indifference and some hostility among :those not involved and a degree

of defensiveness among those who became involved.

The first important publication on historical archaeology in Australia (only nine years ago) displays such defensiveness. The site excavated and recorded was a pioneering cement works on Fossil Beach

near Melbourne in Victoria. This industrial enterprise of 1860-4 had left substantial remains: a horse-powered wash-mill (to mix slaked lime with clay), the large settling pans associated with the mill, underground tanks, two splendid stone-built kilns (the smaller and

later to burn lime, the larger, built into a cliff-face, to produce

Roman cement), a steam-boiler footing and a sedimentation area. The plant is important, eminently suitable for archaeological work and documented in a variety of ways, but in 1972 it seemed eccentric that a distinguished historian of the ancient world should spend his week-

ends on such an enterprise. Mr. Culican's publication of the project begins:

The present report is published primarily for the

satisfaction of the authors, who over two years devoted most Saturdays to clearing and excavating the ruinous

: 154

installations on Fossil: Beach. Not to record this 'excavation' would be dereliction of archaeological duty and although, in the words of a nun who visited the site, "It is no Ur of the Chaldees', it is hoped that future generations and those of the present who take interest in even these humble industrial ruins, will not

count our efforts of little avail. We had great pleasure in uncovering them. A site where men had lived and worked and planned their place in

the building of their country did not fail to arouse sentiments: the scenic beauty of Fossi] Beach...greatly contributed to them. Both au- | thors are strangers to essays in local history

and beg the reader to forgive the shortcomings of an enterprise which they undertook with a somewhat quixotic zeal (Culican and Taylor 1972:1).

This preface to a scholarly and responsible account of a significant piece of industrial archaeology is very revealing. It is on the defensive. The ruins are ‘humble', the word ‘excavation’ is in inverted commas, the site is not Ur but only a cement works. The two collaborators (Taylor did the surveying, drawing and photographing)

were ‘strangers to essays tn local history!: to them local history

and site-exploration were in large measure synonymous. Finally, the report was written and the project conceived by a man whose academic

career lay, and still lies, in a remote area of history where the

archaeological evidence is pre-eminent.

Since 1972 colonial archaeology in Australia has become respectable, but is has also given many more examples of defensiveness. Naturally most of the directors of projects undertaken on colonial archaeology have been people trained in classical or near-eastern archaeology or in prehistory. Judy Birminhgam, who has been involved in a wide range of ventures in colonial New South Wales and Tasmania, (Birmingham 1973, 1976 a, b, c; Birmingham and Liston 1976) began life

as a Near Eastern specialist. David Frankel, who excavated at Eliza-

beth Farm House in Parramatta in 1972 (Frankel 1972, 1979) and is now supervising bibliographical work on colonial sites at La Trobe Univer-

sity in Victoria, is a distinguished Cypriot archaeologist and theoretician. Jim Allen is primarily a Pacific prehistorian, but his doctorate at Canberra in 1969 was a study of Port Essington, the British settlement on the extreme north of Australia, occupied from 1838 to 1849, and Allen's publications on the site and significance

of Port Essington have reached an international public (Allen 1967 a, b, 1972, 1973). Graham Connah made his name as a prehistorian of Africa but has become interested in the landscape history of New England (in northern New South Wales). Connah has published on this theme and has recently conducted two substantial studies including excavation and aerial photography, one of a mid-colonial house called Winterbourne, the other of a colonial flour-cum-timber mill on a property near Glen Innes (Connah 1977, 1978, 1980; Connah, Rowland and Oppenheimer 1978). - .

Such senior archaeologists as Birmingham, Frankel, Allen and Connah have shown some defensiveness about their involvement in the European archaeology of Australia. Rather like Culican, Allen found 155

in 1970 that . the discipline is in a formative state and it is which surround it... It is self-evident that necessary to understand the peculiar problems

archaeology in the historic period in Australia

must be recognised as a technique for producing

historical evidence--that in effect this archaeology is history. (Allen 1970: 99)

Eight years later, Graham Connah was finding it necessary to remind the readers of his Winterbourne monograph that if one popular Australian misconception of archaeology is that it is something concerning far away, exotic places, then another misconception is undoubtedly that archaeologists spend all their time digging up things... The purpose of historical archaeology is clearly to throw light on periods or areas in the past about which written history does not tell us

enough. (Connah, Rowland and Oppenheimer 1978: 3.)

The popular misconceptions are not entirely eradicated, the lack of prestige accorded to colonial work by traditional archaeologists in the universities has not disappeared, but a very great change has come over the professional acceptability of historical archaeology in the course of the 1970's. There are a number of interlockina reasons for this change, which come from developments within the

historical profession, the archaeological fraternity and the state's attitude towards historic sites. The respectability of local history, the increasing use of local

topics for B.A. (Honours) theses and for post-graduate theses in history and economic history, the increasing number of academic historians writing some form of local study, the incentive given by the BiCentennial History Project to celebrate 1988 in many ways, not neglecting the parochial or regional, have all contributed to a warmer atmosphere towards colonial archaeology. Most general Australian historians would still not think of using archaeological material directly, but there is a new generation of students who take a broader view of evidence on narrower topics. Within the archaeological profession two things have been painfully realised. Undergraduates studying archaeology need practical experience and want to go to the field. Although Australia mounts expeditions to Israel, to Egypt, to Greece (at Zagora and now at Torone) and to Jordan (at Telleilat Ghassul and Pella), only a handful of students can go overseas, and those who go are far more useful if they have already learnt the rudiments of field archaeology at home. Other students might join the large number of expeditions to aboriginal sites mounted by departments of anthropology and prehistory, and this is admirable experience. But all the students of archaeology cannot go to aboriginal sites any more than they can go to Greece or Jordan, and, , equally important, they do not wish to go. Few students wish, in any case, to go exclusively to prehistoric or to Mediterranean sites. So colonial sites in all parts of Australia have become essential 156

training grounds for students both from tertiary institutions and from adult education (Jack 1980 b, c, Madden 1980 b).

The reason for student interest is partly the attractive nature of many of the sites, but it is also severely practical. The establishment of an Australian Heritage Commission in Canberra, under a

federal act of 1975, has been a critical factor in creating archaeo-

logical employment. The Heritage Commission itself has only a small

Staff and is directly responsible only for the relatively few «ites

on land which is controlled by the Commonwealth government, but it has

played a key role in financing and co-ordinating projects administered by individual states. The subsequent creation of a Heritage Counci] in New South Wales, and, even more recently, of a Heritage Unit in South Australia, combined with the expansion of the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Victorian Archaeological Survey

into historic sites, has owed a great deal to the Heritage Commission in Canberra. As a result, there are more jobs in state Heritage departments and there is a variety of specially funded individual pro-

jects the length and breadth of Australia. Public interest has been

whetted and educated, jobs and odd-jobs have been generated. Able undergraduates who might ten years ago have seen their research future

in Australian political history or in classical art-history now in

increasing humbers see better prospects in colonial archaeology. The job opportunities are certainly exaggerated by many optimistic students, but they do exist in promising numbers. Such an expectation of a career in archaeology Is important, though not necessarily decisive, in encouraging students of all ages to gain research experience and field experience on colonial sites. At the University of Sydney there are now some thirty postgraduate students of historical archaeology. The four dozen undergraduates are also doing limited projects as part of their degree course. As a result in any given year there are over a hundred different projects being completed: and, although Sydney is the major centre for historical archaeology, other universities such as the

Australian National, Melbourne, La Trobe, New England and James Cook

are also producing well-trained students.

Museums also encourage such work. The Western Australian Museum

is pre-eminent in maritime archaeology, with a well-earned international reputation and three major publications on European wrecks (Green 1977 a, b; Henderson 1973). But its curator of history, David Hutcheson, has also played a significant role in land-based colonial projects in Western Australia and the museums in all other states have

an important role both in site survey and, especially, in artefact study. The growth of specialised local museums taking a thematic

approach to colonial industry, agriculture and social life has also

been striking and encouraging, and has benefited from the patronage

of the Australian Heritage Commission.

The American experience that much of the success of colonial archaeology has been generated by the success of Colonial Williamsburg

has not got a real Australian counterpart. The nearest equivalent to

Williamsburg is Old Sydney Town, an attempt to recreate Sydney as it was in 1810. Old Sydney Town is some fifty miles from Sydney, on a

bush site where an artificial harbour has been created, with replicas of boats, streets, buildings and activities (such as floggings) relevant 157

to the third decade of the colony's-existence. Old Sydney Town is synthetic and looks synthetic: academic views about its worth and the validity of the detail are far from unanimous. Research activity

was certainly generated by Old Sydney Town before it opened in 1975

and the association with the School of Architecture at the University of New South Wales produced mutual benefits: but there is no comparison possible with the achievements of Ivor Noel Hume at Williamsburg. Many Australians concerned with colonial archaeology would consider

that the money lavished (first by private enterprise, then by govern-

ments) on synthesising Old Sydney Town would have been far better

spent recording and preserving real colonial sites and | believe that the priorities were wrong. The surveys of the built environment on various colonia! sites funded by the Heritage Commission (or its predecessor, the Interim Committee for the National Estate), the National Trusts, the universities, local government or private individuals have produced results

more impressive than Old Sydney Town. Beechworth tn Victoria, for example, is an impressive gold-mining town founded in 1852. The

historical reconstruction of the colonial township, fully documented, with front elevations of the original streetscapes building by building, an authoritative study of ''intactness" in the buildings of two major streets, and an analysis of types and details of early shop-

fronts was published by the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Town and Regional Planning at the University of Melbourne in a volume

of 600 pages (Tibbits et al. 1976).

Debate over policy in such important colonial settlements as

Beechworth has produced a number of development or management plans,

of varying quality and scholarship. The best of them have included good studies of the existing town or village, historical and architectural, but all have suffered from approaches more partial than the archaeologist would advocate. Nonetheless, studies of villages such

as Carcoar in New South Wales or Ross itn Tasmania or of suburbs such as Glebe in Sydney have been important.

Ken Latona's study of Carcoar demonstrates the history and building development of a remarkably untouched village founded in 1838-9 but arrested by the gold-rush elsewhere in the 1860's and by ©

the absence of a railway ]ink until 1888 (Latona 1976). Interest in the future of the village of Ross, which was a focus of settlement

in the midlands of Tasmania by 1826, resulted in an environmental design study and an archaeological report on the 1836 bridge with its unique extravaganza of carvings round each of the three arches (McNei 1

et al. 1976; Byrne 1976). The analysis of town architecture in the

Sydney suburb of Glebe by Professor Bernard Smith, then head of the

Power Institute of Fine Arts at the University of Sydney, with his wife, has, in a quite different way, provided a sound and scholarly base for assessing Victorian town-housing (Smith, 1973). Studies such as these give the sort of detail needed by the archaeologist to flesh out intelligent general surveys such as Historic Towns of Australia (Cox and Stacey 1973).

A few reports on individual categories of housing have been

issued. The great houses of Australia, especially the lordly country mansions of the late Georgian or early Victorian period have attracted National Trust coffee-table books, as one might expect. The most 158

scholarly of this genre is by Rachel: Roxburgh, who has described fifty colonial homesteads in New South Wales in a sumptuous book, particularly rich in drawings of internal details and mouldings (Roxburgh 1974).

The photographer for Miss Roxburgh was Douglass Baglin. Australia

has been singularly fortunate in having a photographer of world class who has devoted much of his life to travelling the length and breadth of the continent recording historic sites and who has, in conjunction with several writers, published a large number of useful illustrated studies of themes such as the variety of verandahs or the use of sand-

stone or the historic context of an individual area or colonial farm

buildings (Baglin and Moffitt 1976; Baglin 1976; Mullens, Martin and Baglin 1976; Roxburgh and Baglin 1978).

Baglin is a first-rate populariser and has made the Australian public much more aware of its varied heritage. He has encouraged al] of us to look around us with a more discerning eye. His success is a necessary corollary to specialised studies such as the report commisSioned by the Heritage Commission on vernacular domestic architecture

in North Queensland mining towns before the First World War (Bell 1979)

or the number of excavations done on individual buildings over the past eight years.

Excavation is increasingly seen as a last resort, too expensive, time consuming and labour-intensive to have a high priority in the normal work of recording and reporting. But the needs of students seeking training in archaeological techniques and the demands of

various government bodies have resulted in some worthwhile digs.

The Department of Prehistory and Archaeology at the University of New England, under Professor Graham Connah, has completed and pub-

lished a study, including excavation, of a New England homestead called Winterbourne, built between 1845 and 1851 and substantially demolished in 1922. The project, including an excavation to establish

details of the area adjacent to the house and to find the original detached kitchen, is a model of its sort, ‘a study in cultural adaptation'. Itt was an urgently needed investigation of a rapidly deteriorating site, chosen among other deteriorating sites because of the historical data and oral testimony available in conjunction with an

architectural survey and an archaeological exploration (Connah, Rowland

and Oppenheimer 1978).

Elizabeth Farm House in Parramatta is a building more renowned than Winterbourne. The present house is the nineteenth-century evolution of a late-eighteenth century cottage built by John and Elizabeth Macarthur on the Parramatta property on which the Macarthurs pastured their celebrated flock of merino sheep. The house has a fascinating history of organic growth, contains a number of very early sections

and the cellar of 1793 is still intact, the only complete eighteenthcentury room to survive in Australia. The house, standing ina piece of parkland preserved from the sub-division of the estate, has changed little this century and was preserved through the foresight first of private owner, William Swann and his daughters (1904-68) then by a private trust (1968-78) and finally by the government of New South

Wales. Under the aegis of the private trust in 1972, Dr. Frankel and | organised a survey and limited excavation to answer some specific 159

questions about the original rectangular house: among other things, a classic excavation revealed the postholes probably of the back

verandah, which had been assumed but not proven to have existed and

the exploration located and partially excavated the rubble-filled cellar of 1793, revealing its original stone flagging (Frankel 1979).

The excavation on the north front raised many problems about the early nineteenth-century approaches to the house and in 1976 and 1977 further excavations were conducted in that area by Maureen Byrne, with interesting results about both the driveway and the construction of the present flagged verandah (Byrne and Jack 1979). After the acquisition of the property by the government, there was a further archaeological exploration by Judy Birmingham, retracing some of the earlier excavation and doing further work on the foundations, the cellar and the verandah (Birmingham 1979). The house has also been the object of archaeological surveys by students of the University of New South Wales, Professor Freeland and the Government Architect's

Office, yet the authoritative publication about the building and its context is yet in the future. Although Elizabeth Farm is probably the most important, and emotive, single colonial building in Australia, although it has been subjected to so many scrutinies, although the historical documentation has been wastefully re-examined by successive researchers, Elizabeth Farm remains more a warning than an example. The tensions between the government and the private trust, the difficulties in publishing the 1972, 1976 and 1977 excavation reports and the unco-ordinated nature of work done under the Heritage Council has

left Elizabeth Farm safe but still lacking the authoritative interdisciplinary explication which it so richly deserved. Other excavations have not yet been published extensively, a

recurrent difficulty. Peter Coutts' account of the archaeological examination of Captain Mills! house at Port Fairy in Victoria is,

however, imminent and the extension of the work of the Victorian Archaeological Survey (previously committed only to prehistoric sites) is welcome and encouraging. The patronage of the Queensland National

Trust was extended in 1975 to an excavation at Toowoomba on the Darling

Downs. Here the Royal Bull's Head Inn was the scene of Dr. Biernoff's

dig to locate the cellar of the present inn built in 1859 and to find evidence of the earlier hotel of 1847. The cellar proved elusive, but the combined team of students from the universities of Queensland and Sydney made progress with the site of the early, timber inn (Van Proctor 1975). Also in Queensland, a state with great archaeological

riches, both aboriginal and historic, but with few facilities to en-

courage historic work, the museum in Brisbane recently investigated a convict-built commissariat store begun in 1829 (Sanker 1979). This work was done in conjunction with a restoration project organised by the Department of Works: as too often happens, the work was rushed

because of the restoration timetable, but it is encouraging to find

archaeological work being done at all. When Cadman's Cottage, a stone cottage built in 1816 on the shores of Sydney Cove, was restored in 1973 no attempt was made by the National Parks and Wildlife Service to assess the undisturbed detritus surrounding the cottage and below the floor-boards. I!rretrievable information was lost in the workmen's

private.

spades, as it has been lost in many restorations both official and

Responsible and extensive archaeological work has, however, been

increasingly encouraged. The strategic settlement on the Arafura Sea 160

at Port Essington, called Victoria from 1838 to 1849, largely peopled by Royal Marines showing the British flag on the north coast of the

continent, was the object of the first postgraduate thesis on historical archaeology attempted in Australia. Dr. Allen's work on Port

Essington and his subsequent career have been a major influence, along with the University of Sydney team, in encouraging the physical examination of significant colonial settlements (Allen 1967 a, b, 1972, 1973).

The predecessor of Port Essington, Fort Dundas, not far to the west on Melville Island, was established in 1824 for commercial more than strategic reasons, and abandoned in 1829; Fort Dundas was mapped, surveyed and an excavation trench opened in 1975 by Eleanor Crosby under the auspices of several Northern Territory agencies. The report

of this interesting, but preliminary, exploration of a large and desperately overgrown site, has been published (Crosby 1978).

Interest in such early settlements was also evinced in Tasmania, where in 1978-9 excavations were conducted at the site of Lieutenant Bowen’s first settlement in Van Diemen's Land, at Risdon Cove in 1803. Building on a very thorough analysis of the documentary evidence, the National Parks team concentrated on the plan of the 1803 settlement and the evidence of later occupation there both by whites and by aborigines (Glover 1978; National Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania, 1979).

Searching for origins is a very natural thing and the pre-occupation with the earliest settlements in both Northern Australia and

Tasmania is even stronger in the foundation state of New South Wales. Captain Cook's landing-place on Botany Bay in 1770 has given Austral-

ians the most emotive of all contact sites and the aboriginal sites .

close to the place where Cook's boat put ashore have been excavated, first by the Australian Museum some seventy years ago and, more scientifically, by Vincent Megaw in 1968 and 1970. Although the aboriginal

aspects of these significant excavations are not relevant here, the

discovery of a bottle fragment and a bone button-mould was greeted with uncommon interest. The mould is almost certainly the core of an embroidered button such as Cook wore on his dress uniform and the romance of the find (known irreverently as Captain Cook's fly-button) has remained rather greater than its evidential importance (Megaw 1969, 1971, 1972).

A much more substantial colonial contact site is the settlement created for the last Tasmanian aborigines, at Wybalenna on Flinders Island in Bass Strait. The dwindling group of surviving aborigines-less than 200--was moved to the island in 1833 to be educated into the ways of the nineteenth century. But the last aboriginal woman who could bear children died in 1840, the extinction of the race could not be prevented and the settlement was abandoned in 1847. The brick terrace in which the aborigines lived, the chapel, the superintendent's house, the hospital and other buildings decayed rapidly after 1847 and in 1969 it was only the restoration of the chapel by the National Trust in Tasmania which revealed the remains of aboriginal housing. This in turn led in 197] to an excavation by adult education students under the direction of Judy Birmingham (Birmingham 1973b). A great deal of value in showing both the changes and the continuities in the aborigines' life style was recovered among the artefacts and the results from this important excavation are eagerly awaited, not least

because of the fairly precise dating of most artefacts. 161

Artefact studies are still only in their infancy in Australia.

Many articles were, of course, imported, particularly from Britain and the U.S.A., so overseas studies are very relevant, but only a few classes of object have been published with any thoroughness by Australian archaeologists and museum curators. Some aspects of furnishings have been the subject of attractive books, because of their value to collectors: the outstanding examples are cottage chairs and kerosene lamps (Cuffley and Carney 1974; Cuffley 1973). Building materials are the subject of intensive study in a doctoral programme now in its fourth year at the University of Sydney and the student, Robert Varman, has already published two studies arising from his thesis, one on nineteenth-century nails, the other on the Marseilles roofing tile which was both imported into late colonial Australia and manufactured in the colonies (Varman 1978, 1980). Decorative iron-work, particularly on house verandahs has been lucky tn attracting a lifetime of study by the late Graeme Robertson who publ ished

studies of the iron lace in the state of Victoria and the cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide and whose magisterial survey of cast iron decoration around the world appeared posthumously in 1977

(Robertson 1960, 1962, 1967, 1973, 1977). With a critical shortage of nineteenth-century catalogues and pattern-books for iron lace, the comprehensive and scholarly work of Dr. Robertson and his wife is of great importance and, unlike most work in Australian archaeology, succeeds in putting the colonies into an authoritative international context. The recent study by Joan Kerr and James Broadbent of Gothic taste in colonial New South Wales serves the same function in putting an extensive range of surviving churches, houses, details and artefacts into a wider setting (Kerr and Broadbent 1980). The only monograph yet published on a particular type of arte-

fact for a single colonial site is an admirable study of the 1055 clay

pipe fragments (representing some 290 pipes) excavated in a single seven-week season at Port Arthur by Maureen Byrne. About one-third

of the pipes can be attributed to makers, all British, overwhelmingly

from Scotland, and, within Scotland, largely from McDougall! and Murray, both of Glasgow (Dane and Morrison 1979). This is an import-

ant treatment of the largest deposit of colonial pipes yet excavated and it is hoped that a forthcoming report in British Archaeological Reports will put the Port Arthur pipes into a wider Australian context. No such thorough and scholarly approach is yet available for

glass or pottery in Australia. Glass is particularly ill-served.

The bottle-collectors have not only ravaged a great number of dumps

in search of whole bottles but have also produced only a collector's newsletter and an attractive but frustrating book on Antique Bottle Collecting in Australia (Vader and Murray 1975). The Australian Glass Manufacturers Company has a useful museum but the catalogue

lacks illustrations and is of small utility without the collection

itself (Dunkerley n.d.): no other bottle museum, and there are many throughout Australia, has produced a scholarly catalogue. Since Vader and Murray in their book proffer quite alarming advice about how to dig in garbage deposits, the quality of most of such bottle finds as evidence for the archaeologist is low. A controlled excavation of the splendid dump at the same gold-mining town of Beechworth in

Victoria which was the subject of an architectural analysis was undertaken by Jim Allen of the Australian National University and the

results of this will be the first publication of an Australian bottle

dump scientifically investigated. Study of the wide range of 162

nineteenth-century glass from Maureen Byrne's excavation at Port Arthur in Tasmania is almost complete and will be the most wide-rang-

ing study of excavated Australian glassware up to date. The bottles and other glass from the dig at the site of a Presbyterian church built in 1858 in an inner Sydney suburb have now been published (Byrne 1979).

This is the only substantial site-report dealing with an interesting and extensive corpus of colonial glass, but the Port Arthur finds are far more numerous.

Pottery, the other great basic class of useful and ubiquitous artefact, has, like glass, been poorly served. Marjorie Graham, a leading Australian collector and expert on transfer printed ware (Graham 1978), has published her long-awaited book on Australian

pottery up to the 1920's, with an additional chapter on studio potters

of the 1930s and 1940s (Graham 1979). The distinguished pottery at Lithgow, begun in 1880, has been the object of a lavish centenary history by lan Evans (Evans 1980) and previously Judy Birmingham and Kevin Fahy had reprinted the pottery catalogues of 1889 and 1895, along with a brickworks! price list of around 1906. Margaret Klam has also

published an interesting study of 'Bristol' covers at Lithgow and

the Lithgow Regional Library has released two volumes of source material for the history and archaeology of the pottery (Birmingham 1974; Klam 1977; Lithgow Regional Library 1979 a, b). Although Kevin Fahy

has published a useful check-list of potteries and potters in colonial

New South Wales (Fahy 1971), there are no substantial studies, least of all based on archaeology.

There has been a long series of excavations at the abandoned pottery site of James King at Irrawang in New South Wales, near a township called Raymond Terrace north of Newcastle. This pottery operated from 1833 until 1855, had two kilns, two workshops and a puddling mill. It was excavated by the Sydney University Archaeological Society usually with Judy Birmingham as director, at least once a

year from 1967 to 1975. Other than very brief progress reports, an exhibition catalogue in 1969 and four pages of an article in World Archaeology in 1976, this massive undertaking has inspired only two substantial historical articles, which put the pottery into a comprehensive biographical and historical context (Byrne 1975b, 1976; Hunter District Water Board 1969; Birmingham 1976c; Bickford 1971; Jack and

Liston 1982). The systematic publication of the excavation

reports and an analysis of the fifteen thousand sherds recovered at the Irrawang site would be an archaeological event of significance. Al-

though imported pottery was of greater moment in mid-colonial Australia than locally manufactured products, these excavations contain a great

deal of potential information for clay techhology, for the wide range of local pottery from a works for which no catalogue survives and for the importance of imported Staffordshire moulds, which appear also in house decoration around the same period.

The excavations at Irrawang are the most extensive to be con-

ducted on any Australian industrial site. The first publication,

however, Culican's report of the lime and cement works of 1860-4 at Fossil Beach in Victoria, remains one of the best in welding documentation with physical evidence (Culican and Taylor 1972). A thesis recently completed at the University of Sydney by Kate Holmes achieves

the same synthesis for a remote gold-mining site. This site, on the inhospitable White Range at Arltunga, some seventy miles west 163

of Alice Springs in central Australia, was occupied from 1898 and was in sharp decline by the opening of World War |. The survey of the hill-side mining encampments concentrated the excavation first on a stone store which proved to be uniquely provided with an external

wind-tunnel to ventilate the building during the intolerable heat of

the summer. An adjacent complex could be demonstrated to be the home

of a miner called Patrick O'Neil and his wife, one of the few white women in these fairly wild parts; the decisive proof lay in the

identification of the slate bed of a billiard table lying in a spaissue to O'Neil of a licence for a billiard table and the implausi-

cious, airy building between the domestic rooms and a forge. The

bility of any other such table ever reaching this god-forsaken spot prove with rare conclusiveness the identity of the owner of this substantial camp (Holmes 1980). No other billiard table has ever been excavated, as far as | know, and the sheer bizarre nature of Kate Holmes! discoveries gives the sort of romantic appeal that historical archaeology sometimes lacks.

Gold mining always has glamour and there have been some splendid

books illustrating the gold-boom of the later nineteenth-century

mainly from contemporary photographs (Stone 1974; James and Lee 1975).

Serious excavation has been carried out not only at Arltunga but at the much earlier gold town of Hill End in New South Wales. At Hill End the Metropolitan Hotel site was excavated by Sydney University students under Judy Birmingham and some distance away the very inter-

esting and unusual ore-roasting pits of the 1850's were investigated

in 1974 by John Wade and Maureen Byrne. They are analogous to the Cheddleton flint mill kilns in Staffordshire (Birmingham 1976b; Madden 1976) and again point up the need for more systematic appraisal of

British influences on colonial technology, and colonial adaptations of overseas techniques.

This essential approach to industrial technology has been begun

in the study of the iron industry, in particular of the specatular

blast furnace built at Lal Lal near Ballarat in Victoria in 1880-1

(Staughton and Ashley 1976; Birmingham, Jack and Jeans 1979), the copper mines in South Australia (Payton 1978; Birmingham, Jack and Jeans 1979), and the shale-oil industry which was important in New South Wales from the 1870's to the 1920's and has again become of some economic interest (Eardley and Stephens 1974; Birmingham, Jack

and Jeans 1979). The amount of work waiting to be done 1s very great,

for there are few comprehensive listings of industrial sites yet available and fewer comparative studies. The whole question of industrial revolution technology transported to a hostile environment is challenging and exciting. Some of the possible ways forward have been suggested in the richly-illustrated volume entitled Australian Pioneer Technology: Sites and Relics written by three of us at the

University of Sydney (Birmingham, Jack and Jeans 1979), but the authors

of this brave attempt at a stimulating survey are only too aware that bravery may be temerity, for the survey precedes the monographs.

, The extent to which the climate of popular and academic opinion Has moved over the past decade is, however, very impressive. The

practice of colonial archaeology is still highly pragmatic. -A histor ian like myself sees the contribution of archaeology as principally the supply of additional evidence, sometimes the only evidence, for some aspects of social and economic life in colonial Australia, 164

particularly evidence for local or tndustrial studies. The number of contract archaeologists who can expect to be commissioned to produce

such data is substantial: many of these are trained as prehistorians and some seem to see a colonial site as less challenging than a prehistoric excavation. Those who are concerned with the theory of

archaeology and with the testing of new techniques and approaches are sometimes critical of colonial work simply because of its pragmatism. The second criticism has nore validity than the view that colonial work is less exacting, but as long as most surveys and excavations are either rescue operations or commissioned for some severely practical purpose, colonial archaeologists can seldom choose a site because of

its intellectual and theoretical challenge. The expeditions mounted

for theses by Jim Allen at Port Essington (Allen 1969), by Kate Holmes at Arltunga (Holmes 1980) and, on a larger scale, by the late Maureen Byrne at the extraordinarily complex prisoners! barracks site at Port Arthur in Tasmania (Jack 1978) are examples of sites chosen for the interesting relationship between documentary and material evidence, but they are exceptions. The achievement of colonial archaeology since 1970 lies in making this application of archaeology respectable,

respected and productive. There is every sign that the need for archaeological exploration of all manner of colonial sites will

continue to grow rapidly because of more enlightened legislation, of government patronage and of academic interest.

NOTE: Since this article was written in 1981, a good deal of work in colonial archaeology has been undertaken or published in Australia. The most significant publishing development has been the appearance in January 1983 of the first annual issue of the Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology, edited by Professor Connah and published by the Australian Society for Historical Archaeology, Box 220 Holme Building, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006. This volume

contains two articles discussing the problems of problem-orientation in Australian archaeology; a preliminary bibliography; a discussion of the archaeology of the New Zealand building industry; an examination of the technology of nineteenth-century whaling; and three excavation reports, one on an 1820's brick barrel-drain at Parramatta, one on a late-Victorian flour-mill in Uralla, and one on the Arltunga goldfield mentioned in my text and illustrated in figures 3 and 4, OA substantial complement to Australian Pioneer Technology by the same triumvirate of University of Sydney authors Birmingham, Jack and Jeans is now in the press at Heinemann in Melbourne and will appear later in 1983 under the title Industrial Archaeology in Australia: Rural Industries.

165

REFERENCES

Allen, F. James, 1967a, ''The Cornish Round Chimney in Australia,'"' Cornish Archaeology, Vol. 6, 68-73

Allen, F. James, 1967b, ''The Technology of Colonial Expansion: A Nineteenth-Century Military Outpost on the North Coast of

Australia,'' Industrial Archaeology, Vol. 4, IlIff.

Allen, F. James, 1969, ''Archaeology and the History of Port Essington,"! Ph. D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra Allen, F. James, 1970, "Early Colonial Archaeology'' in F. D. McCarthy

(ed.), Aboriginal Antiquities in Australia: Their Nature and Preservation, Australian Aboriginal Studies, Vol. 22, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra 99-10]

Allen, F. James, 1972, ''Port Essington: A Successful Limpet Port?'"' Historical Studies, Vol. 15, 341-60 Allen, F. James, 1973, ''The Archaeology of Nineteenth-Century British Imperialism: Australian Case Study,'' World Archaeology, Vol. 5, 44-60

Baglin, Douglass, 1976, Sandstone Sydney, Rigby, Adelaide

Baglin, Douglass and Moffitt, Peter, 1976, The Australian Verandah, Ure Smith, Sydney

Barr, Margaret, 1975, ''The Phoenix Iron Foundary, Uralla,'' Australian

Society for Historical Archaeolo Newsletter, Vol. 5, no. 2 (September) 6-21

Bate, Weston D., 1978, Lucky City: The First Generation at Ballarat, 1851-1901, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne

Bell, Peter, 1979, Vernacular Domestic Architecture in North Queensland Mining Towns, Interim Report to Australian Heritage Commission, Department of History, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland Bickford, Anne, 1971, ''James King of Irrawang: A Colonial Entrepreneur,'' Journal of Royal Australian Hstorical Society, Vol. 57; LO-57

Birmingham, J. M., 1973a, ''l9th Century Tombstones," Australian

Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 3, no. | (January) 6-11

Birmingham, J. M., 1973b, 'Wybalenna, The Tasmanian Aboriginal Settlement on Flinders Island," Tasmanian Year Book, Vol. 7, 10-13

Birmingham, J. M., 1976a, "Eucalyptus Distilleries,'' Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 6, no. 2, (September) 3-4, 16 166

Birmingham, J. M., 1976b, ''Roasting Pits at Hill End,'' Australian

Society for Historical Archaeolo Newsletter, Vol. 6, no. 2, (September) 7, 15

Birmingham, J. M., 1976c, ''The Archaeological Contribution to Nineteenth Century History: Some Australian Case Studies,'' World Archae-

ology, Vol. 7, no. 3., 306-17

Birmingham, J. M., 1979, "Archaeological Report: Elizabeth Farm, Parramatta, N.S.W. Part [l: Excavation Programme 1. Objectives and Results, 1978'' in Heritage Council of N.S.W., Elizabeth Farm, Parramatta: Reports prepared for the Steering Committee of the Heritage Council of New South Wales for the Restoration of Elizabeth Farm, Sydney Birmingham, J. M., and Liston, Carol, 1976, Old Sydney Burial Ground, 1974, Studies in Historical Archaeology, Vol. 5, Australian Society for Historical Archaeology, Sydney

Birmingham J. M., Jack, R. lan and Jeans, Dennis N., 1979, Australian Pioneer Technology: Sites and Relics, Heinemann Educational, Richmond, Victoria

Blainey, G., 1969, The Rush That Never Ended: A History of Australian Mining, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 2nd ed. Byrne, Maureen, A., 1974, "Hill End and its History: The Remaining Evidence,'' Australian Society for Historical Archaeology News-

letter, Vol. 4, no. 1 Cisrit) 4-6

Byrne, Maureen A., 1975a, ''Excavation at Addington: 23-24 August 1975,"'

Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 5, no. 2 (September) 2-3

ber) 3

Byrne, Maureen A., 1975b, ''Irrawang, August 1975,'' Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 5, no. 2 (SeptemByrne, Maureen A., 1976a, ''Irrawang: December 1975,'' Australian

Society for Historical Archaeolo Newsletter, Vol. 6, no. | (April) 3

Byrne, Maureen A., 1976b, Ross Bridge, Tasmania, Studies in Historical Archaeology no. 3, Australian Society for Historical Archaeology with Ross Council and Ross Bridge Restoration Committee, Sydney

(April) 3 .

Byrne, Maureen A., 1977, ''Excavations at Port Arthur, 1977,'' Australian

Society for Historical Archaeolo Newsletter, Vol. 7, no. |

Byrne, Maureen A. (ed.), 1979, Lot 48 Darling Street, Balmain: An Archaeological Enquiry, Sydney University Archaeological Society Publication 1, sydney

Byrne, Maureen A., and Jack, R. lan, 1979, "Excavations at Elizabeth Farm House, Parramatta, 1976,'' The Artefact, Vol. 4, 57-61 167

Clark, E. G., 1975, ''The Wreck of the Clipper Ship ‘Catherine Adamson,'!! Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 5,

no. | (April -]

Connah, G. 1977, 'Wool, Water and Settlement: The Archaeological Landscape of Saumarez Station,'' Armidale and District Historical Society Journal, Vol. 20, 117-27

Connah, G. 1978, ''Aborigine and Settler: Archaeological Air-photog-

raphy,'' Antiquity, Vol. 52, 95-9

Connah, Graham, 1980, ''An Experiment That Failed? Water-Power in 19th Century New England,'' Australian Society for Historical Archae-

ology Newsletter, Vol. 10, no. 2 (July) 18-21

Connah, Graham, Rowland, Michael and Oppenheimer, Jillian, 1978,

Captain Richards' House at Winterbourne: A Study in Historical Archaeology, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W.

Cox, Philip and Stacey, Wesley, 1973, Historic Towns of Australia, Lansdowne, Melbourne

Crosby, Eleanor, 1978, Survey and Excavation at Fort Dundas, Melville

lsland, Northern Territory, 1975, Australian Society for Historical Archaeology, Occasiona] Paper no. I, Sydney

Cuffley, Peter, 1973, A Complete Catalogue and History of Oil and Kerosene Lamps in Australia, Pioneer, Yarra Glen, Victoria Cuffley, Peter and Carney, Kevin, 1974, A Catalogue and History of Cottage Chairs in Australia, Pioneer, Yarra Glen, Victoria Culican, William and Taylor, John, 1972, Fossil Beach Cement Works,

Mornington, Victoria: An Essay in Industrial Archaeology, Refulgence Publishers, Deception Bay, Queensland

Cumming, D. A., 1979, ''Engineering Heritage and the South Australian Scene,'' Australian Society for Historical Archaeology News-

letter, Vol. 9, no. | (May ) 17-2)

Dane, Alexandra and Morrison, Richard, 1979, Clay Pipes from Port Arthur, 1830-1877, Technical Bulletin no. 2, Department of

Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra

Department of Main Roads, New South Wales, 1976, The Roadmakers: A History of Main Roads in New South Wales, Department of Main

Roads, Sydney

Dunkerley, A. C. n.d., Australian Glass Manufacturers Company Bottle Museum: Catalogue of Displayed Bottles, Australian Glass Manufacturers Company, Sydney

Eardley, G. H. and Stephens, E. M.,1974, The Shale Railways of N.S.W., Australian Railway Historical Society, Sydney

, 168

Edwards, Ron, 1975, Australian Traditional Bush Crafts, Lansdowne, Melbourne

Evans, lan, 1980, The Lithgow Pottery, Flannel Flower Press, Glebe, N.S.W.

Fahy, Kevin, 1971, ‘'Potters and Potteries in Sydney and New South Wales,

1803-1900,'' Pottery in Australia, Vol. 10 no. 2, 15-18

Fletcher, Brian H., 1976, Landed Enterprise and Penal Society: a

History of Farming and Grazing in New South Wales before 1821, Sydney University Press, Sydney

Fletcher, Brian H., 1979, "Sir John Jamison in New South Wales 18141844,"' Journal of Royal Australian Historical Society, Vol. 65,

no. | (June) 1-29

Frankel, D., 1972, "Historical Archaeology in Australia,'' The Etruscan, Vol. 21, no. 2, 19-22 Frankel, D., 1979, '"'Excavations at Elizabeth Farm House, 1972,'' The

Artefact, Vol. 4, 39-56

French, Maurice, 1980, ''Local History and a Regional College: the Darling Downs Experience,'' Australian Historical Association Bulletin, no. 23 (July) 5-13 Gilbert, Lionel A., and Driscoll, William P., 1974, History Around Us: An Enguiry Approach to Local History, Hicks Smith, Sydney | Gilbert, Lionel, 1980, A Grave View of History, Rigby, Adelaide

Glover, Margaret, 1978, History of the Site of Bowen's Settlement, Risdon's Cove, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania, Occasional Paper no. 2, Sandy Bay, Tasmania Graham, Marjorie, 1978, Printed Ceramics in Australia, Australian Society for Historical Archaeology, Occasional Paper no. 2, Sydney

Graham, Marjorie, 1979, Australian Pottery of the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century, David Ell, Sydney

Green, Jeremy N., 1977a, Australia's Oldest Wreck: The Historical Background and Archaeoloyical Analysis of the Wreck of the English East India Company's Ship ''Trial'', Lost off the Coast of Western Australia in 1 5E9 BAR $27, Oxford

Green, Jeremy N., 197/7b, The Loss of the Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie Jacht Vergulde Draeck, Western Australia 1656: An Historical Background and Excavation Report with an Appendix on Similar Loss of the Fluit Lastdrager, BAR S36, Oxford

Hancock, Sir W. Keith, 1930, Australia, Benn, London Hancock, Sir W. Keith, 1972, Discovering Monaro: A Study of Man's [mpact on His Environment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 169

Harwood, Norm, 1977, ''An Industrial. Relic of the Past Uncovered,'!

Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol./7, no. 2 (June) 6-8

Henderson, Graeme, 1973, The Wreck of the "'Elizabeth,'' Studies in

Historical Archaeology, no. 1, Australian Society for Historical

Archaeology, Sydney

Holmes, Kate, 1978, "Excavations near Arltunga, Northern Territory,'! Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 8, no. 2 (December) 8-9

Holmes, Kate, 1979, Windsor Barracks - The Guardhouse, Australian Society for Historical Archaeology, Occasional Paper 6, Sydney Holmes, Kate, 1980, ''The White Range Settlement Area, Arltunga Gold-

field, Northern Territory: A Look at the Life Style of an Iso-

lated Mining Area using Written and Archaeological Records,"’ M.A. (Pass) thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney

Hunter District Water Board, 1969, lrrawang Australia: An Exhibition of Artifacts from the Pottery of James King, Hunter District Water Board, Newcastle

Jack, R. lan, 1977, "Local History in Australia,'' Current Affairs Bulletin, Vol. 54, no. 2 (July) 24-30 Jack, R. lan, 1978, ''ln Memoriam Maureen Byrne,'' Australian Archaeology, no. 8 (September) 1-3 Jack, R. lan, 1980a, Andrew Brown's Woollen Mill at Lithgow, Lithgow

District Historical Society, Occasional Paper no. 32, Lithgow

Jack, R. lan 1980b, "Colonial Archaeology in Australia,'' Australian Archaeology, no. 11 (December) 18-24

Jack, R. tan, 1980c, "Adult Education and Historical Archaeology,'! Australian Archaeology, no. II (December) 101-106 Jack, R. lan, 1980d, A Colonial Scene: The Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley, lllustrated by Daphne Kingston, University of Sydney, Sydney

Jack, R. lan and Liston, Carol A., 1982, ''A Scottish Immigrant

in New South Wales, James King of Irrawang,'' Journal of Royal

Victoria

Australian Historical Society, Vol. 68 pt. 2, 92-106

James, G. J. and Lee, C. G. 1975, Walhalla Heyday, Graham, Ringwood,

Kerr, Joan and Boradbent, James, 1980, Gothick Taste in the Colony of New South Wales, David Ell, Sydney

Klam, Margaret, 19/77, "The Pottery of the Lithgow Valley Colliery Company: A Preliminary Study of the Sizes of Some Types of

'Bristol' Covers,'' Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 7, no. 3 (November) 7-13 170

Latona, Ken, 1976, Carcoar, Future Options for an Historic Villaae: An Urban Conservation Study, National Trust of Australia (New South Wales), Sydney

Linge, G. J. R., 1979, Industrial Awakening: A Geography of Australian Manufacturing, 1788 to 1890, Australian National University Press, Canberra

Lithgow Regional Library, 1979a, Lithgow Pottery: A Source Book

(part 1), Australian Society for Historical Archaeology, Occasional Paper no. 4, Sydney |

Lithgow Regional Library, 1979b, Lithgow Pottery: A Source Book (part 11), Australian Society for Historical Archaeology, Occasional Paper no. 5, Sydney Madden, Aedeen, 1976, ''Use of Machinery on the Goldfields of Louisa Creek and Tambaroora, New South Wales 1851-1855,"' Australian

Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 6, no. 2 (September) 8-11

Madden, Aedeen, 1980a, ''The Esk Bank Iron Works Lease, 1887,'' Austral-

tan Society for Historical Archaeolo Newsletter, Vol. 10, no.1] | (March) 25-7

Madden, Aedeen, 1980b, ''A Decade of Adult Education in Archaeology," Australian Archaéology, no. 11 (December) 107-118

McCarty, John W., 1980, 'Melbourne, Ballarat, Sydney, Perth: The New .

City Histories,'' Historical Studies, Vol. 19, no. 74 (April) 1-15

McNeil, Barry et.al., 1976, Ross, New Life for an Old Village: An Environmental Design Study, Ross Municipal Council, Hobart,

Tasmania

Megaw, J. V. S., 1969, ''Captain Cook and the Australian Aborigine," Australian Natural History (December) 255-60 Megaw, J. V. S., 1971, ''Cook and the Aborigines,'' in J. V. S. Megaw (ed.) Employ'd as a Discovered: Papers Presented at the Captain Cook Bi-Centenary Historical Symposium, Sutherland Shire, 1-3 May, 1970, Reed, Sydney, 55-63

Megaw, J. V. S., 1972, "Excavations at the Captain Cook's Landing Place Historic Site, Kurne!], 1968-1971,'' Australian Society for

Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 2, no. | (April), 7-8

Megaw, J. V. S., 1973, Archaeology from Down Under: A Personal View.

An Inaugural Lecture delivered in the University of Leicester, 24 February, 1973, Leicester University Press, Leicester

Mullins, Barbara, Martin, Margaret and Baglin, Douglass, 1976, Historic Hill End, A. H. and A. W. Reed, Terrey Hills, N.S.W. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania, 1979, Bowen Park (Ris-

don Cove Historic Site): Site Guide, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sandy Bay, Tasmania 17]

Nicol, Robert, 1977a, ''In Search of Gravestones,'' Journal of Society for Mass Media and Research Technology, 1977, no. 2, 12-20

Nicol, Robert 1977b, ''Tombstone Territory,'' Newsletter of History Teachers' Association of N.S.W., no. 4, 48-55

Payton, Philip, 1978, Pictorial History of Australia's Little Cornwall, Rigby, Adelaide

Pearson, Michael, 1978, ‘Whaling and Whaling Sites: Some Archaeological Aspects,'' Australian Society for Historical Archaeology

Newsletter, Vol. 8 no. | (June) 8-16

Robertson, E. Graeme, 1960, Victorian Heritage: Ornamental Cast Iron in Architecture, Georgian House, Melbourne Robertson, E. Graeme, 1962, Sydney Lace: Ornamental Cast Iron in Architecture in Sydney, Goergian House, Melbourne Robertson, E. Graeme, 1967, Ornamental Cast Iron in Melbourne, Georgian House, Melbourne

Robertson, E. Graeme, 1973, Adelaide Lace, Rigby, Adelaide

Robertson, E. Graeme and Joan, 19/77, Cast Iron Decoration: A World Survey, Thames and Hudson, London

Roxburgh, Rachel, 1974, Early Colonial Houses of New South Wales, Ure Smith, Sydney

Roxburgh, Rachel and Baglin, Douglass, 1978, Colonial Farm Buildings of New South Wales, Rigby, Adelaide

Sanker, lan G., 1979, ''An Historical Archaeological Investigation of the Commissariat Store, Brisbane,'' Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 9, no. | (May) 9-10 Saunders, David, 1981, A Manual of Architectural History Sources in Australia, Department of Architecture, U. of Adelaide, Adelaide Schulstad, Wes, 1980, ''Newvale Rubble Coke Ovens Site - Vale Colliery,'"'

Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 10, no. | (March) 28-29

Shying, Bruce G., 1977, The Beginning of Brickwork in Australia, Author, Sydney

Sledge, Scott, S., 1979-80, ''Voyage of the EWS, B.H.P. Review (March

1979); reprinted in Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 10, no. | (March 1980) 12-21

Smith, Bernard and Kate, 1973, The Architectural Character of Glebe, Sydney, University.Co-operative Bookshop, Sydney

Stanbury, Peter (ed.) 1979, 10,000 Years of Sydney Life: A Guide to Archaeological Discovery, Macleay Museum, University of Sydney, Sydney 172

Stannage, Tom (ed.), 1974, Local History in Western Australia (A Guide to Research): Papers Read at the Local History Seminar Held at Subiaco on 29 August 1974, Subiaco Historical Society, Subiaco, W.A.

Staughton, P. S. and Ashley, R. W. P., 1976, The Lal Lal Blast Furnace Reserve Report, Lal Lal Blast Furnace Reserve, n.p. Stenning, Eve, 1980, "'A Preliminary Report on the Site of the 'Stockade' near Wisemans Ferry,'' Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 10, no. 2 (July) 8-9 | Stone, Derrick. 1., 1974, Gold Diggers and Diggings: A Photographic Study of Gold in Australia, 1854-1920, Lansdowne, Melbourne

Tibbits, George et al., 1976, Beechworth - Historical Reconstruction, National Estate Project no. 228, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Town and Regional Planning, University of Melbourne,

Parkville, Victoria

Ungar, Ernest, 1976, ''The Mashman Bros. Pottery,'' Australian Society

for Historical Archaeoloay Newsletter, Vol. 6, no. | (April) 9-16

Vader, John and Murray, John, 1975, Antique Bottle Collecting in Australia, Ure Smith, Sydney

Van Proctor, Jenny, 1975, "Digging at the Royal Bull's Head Inn, |

Drayton, Toowoomba,'' Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 5, no. 2 (September) 3-5

Varman, Robert V. J., 1978, The Marseilles or French Pattern Tile in Australia, Australian Society for Historical Archaeology, OccaStonal Paper 3, Sydney

Varman, Robert V. J., 1980, ''The Nail as a Criterion for the Dating of Buildings and Building Sites (late C.18th to 1900),'' Australtan Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 10, no. | (March) 30-7 Wade, John, 1978, "Excavations in Mary Ann Street, Ultimo, N.S.W.

(Part 1),'' Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 8, no. 2 (December) 13-22

Ward, J. 0., 1973, ''Historical Archaeology and the Railway Age,'! Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 3,

no. 2 (July) 5-9

Ward, J. QO. and Jack, R. 1., 1973, ''Hawkesbury Region Timber Tramways,'"'

Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter, Vol. 3, no. 2 (July) 9-10

Young, Gordon, 1978, Early German Settlements in the Barossa Valley, South Australia, Techsearch, Adelaide Young, Gordon, Harmstorf, lan and Langmead, Donald, 1977, The Barossa

Survey, 3 vols., Adelaide College of Advanced Education for Australian Heritage Commission, Adelaide 173

;’ \|

ae TT TJ aIBT ,CHAMBER No.4 CHAMBER No.3 |

PAVING ae | REMAINDER OF NS i Cu : O10 ”on | : 3 .| SSAA

_: TTT EfI] /Ftoor . ; TO WALL

BRICK 4 4}-RENDERED CAPPING

Zz (Zz . . i. a7 Ses = aa .i AH}

, ‘= Vas

\% DRAW-OFF CHAMBER CHAMBER a

No.1 No.2 ' Sj

PLAN OF KILN sea BSE EP EEG Jee

Figure 1. Plan of the lesser kiln at Fossil Beach Cement Works in Victoria, built in 1862 for lime-burning and dismantled to make a picnic place before 1879. The kiln was built of ironstone and rendered with cement produced on the site. Its narrow flue and draw-off channels belong to a type of kiln used in Germany in the mid-nineteenth century. The excavation was done by W. Culican, the plan shown here by John Taylor, who have given permission to reproduce it from their Fossil Beach Cement Works, Mornington, Victoria: an Essay in Industrial Archaeology, 19/72.

174

il

— [2 epa 8aLpood tery

SS mii naan ie on) Orie ae 5s \ | Pe 8

‘r Pa a Sees i a

||__ » “ae g gfe: :t Robes BEPe “y ~

EE ae fa] ices ret Sarr Cees — ust ES Seilean =

Qyiceroe corn ete gesteqieorses — =

etre: Rh ee ord TP c. 2 \ H ane BEE eeepe ———— nga —— fase

tF — vad ae ‘ a me Hal “Rie ans a am 3 CU EE Hf Aepitaisarath ay ee HS‘ . |ae oe oar | _o wo ke L _ . rans BEC Ee ahaa =1ice ea SS ESE Ee er || Saen Paes Cc = aa oars a: i _ Zi 4 !ee 2te-rT = y y grein weal 4 AY é O yey fata ue

0 2m wh eM

eae, Bricks

aed Cobblestones 0 10 ft tr Drain enn end zzz Wood

Gas Stone

Figure 2. The site of the earliest convict barracks at Port Arthur,

Tasmania, excavated by Maureen Byrne in 1977. The excavation of this complex site was the largest operation yet mounted on an historic

site in Australia. Tasman Peninsula was for many years exclusively a penal area and its principal settlement, Port Arthur, remained a convict station from 1830 until 1877. An area some 15 by 25 metres of the disturbed, but vacant, site of the earliest barracks was excavated; a great deal of structural evidence and massive finds of artefacts were uncovered, but the young director, Ms. Byrne, died later in the year. Since then | have had the materials’ transferred to the Australian National University, where Richard Morrison, under the direction of Dr. Jim Allen, has managed to establish the stratigraphic sequences in the various trenches by the skilful use of Harris matrices. He has also achieved what Maureen anticipated, the correlation of the excavation plan with the original 1836 plan in the Tasmanian State Archives (CON 87/38). This is the superimposed plan shown above. Copyright: R. G. Morrison and Tasmanian State Archives. 175

. Pg I Ala al og ham ai OE es 6 ON

aa a a ae ; . Qe hy OR. fF a ate ra Wey: ee Of ye ce ia BK Wied, Me

ee er ond a, NS Ying i ame

. . 5 ‘4 . o yte a 8 eT ht wor’ anette ae cao ee td ace RE gt wy ee jst a ‘ied ods

"fee ig’ es. eelco ee ee het a, eS aX gkpiee 2°" BA iiadee & -eee ; eM at aeee aleye ape ae oe me ey Oatiid Re Ors aTk war aSOT at . @, neat nae eee a m -See aan weeee Yoo “Wap SraBALE MG ok’ tell eee: . Pr ee oF enw a i Do et wa 2 ye aS ie a Se ae +. "i ay =e Kyo mot ig SS , we ra Wee: age 6x in —_ = hy et ‘aid ae i, Soe ee aEat C4 ot Lbs _ zoos n cei et . ; \Re a ,Siew, wok aie oh =. alee NOetsy im “% ensais . 2 Ao, oe eK:

‘+ 4 a “Mi mS < . a, ‘‘“aooOSE. ou ie LeJ -_* Sere "Zh pe , . é etn “y : ene Kea a a ‘ 53 ie “ ‘eo ‘eam + . = ho mane ™ * at Pies x ba ya eet bo Re 5 . an tte

aia Lalwhey ae weae+aeaNoie atmi! IESPe ¢ me eo oe ° ee ee Se ~* Ey a+ |menea sk tee Sent” gia el a Ge Dee te eT Peake Se ee mo, ge eR aioe co 1 ime ine i Sage er es ee oe

‘™ 7 ete peea Se Rersae On tek oe aaeSagSnI ee enef

, . Mn ie cy ae ee FS Tea Ie ge et . ck : a ohare ; a age . 4 . +a ini a 7 ee a ; Saat a Rar Se ae a ay ™s te i ag ee ey

=- cd SRE Sona llef See yaa tgot ot “3 “a Peek on ago, Rg or re. etee. al 2 ae we! . " aieee Wren aS PLS ROY easaae ke pels Pa “bs taenee 5 yYee ‘ Mead a Ts gt hiapne p . aoat on eeNe Boone Pr‘ Oi oN

ian.

bh s* ar Neie5 iiaEin a Me ei ve a we », eS , ‘eR eRteae eee er eee en ee eeNS Pe aiPDrebieear ak, BOS RE ee 2 fe a -ae aeweNS ae nee of GS te: tema - yeCR iey Ne Me a: — fe i. a _ Qe as LS, ar : "eae ne aw ti, foe Ae iad: ‘s gs ; pie . 5 ‘ a He: amet ~ - 4

A a * ee ; Pot © te . a “%: uo 2S TI — =

eS i ; z > Bae ie of ’ ten ie — , aa ee rag ‘i : om 4 a * a] . OS “bas ¥ eS bs ; Fe Ses ge 90,

Oe * ier a “gg CS: 4og . ,~ 7“e an BM ; we ROA A a , £65" Be;we? a ibe ane : "3 f—:t% fahiePit t, den . Bes,ks 4 bth .>3

aK —_ bane “ os re Ny \ aa a. fe 1a ys. . _-an. of aaa(eel ‘eg AyBe tonesSy ais Cm \ ae ae ae fa. vr ae OYE rat. ee me a | ‘ae ae ny oe oe , ee ey “. 2 a: a Xs : Ce ae spt A eee ee act ae ot .. if ar wae ” %‘i Be f. oe NEN i, ppt ae ae fae * wos ct 38) ay . ws L . eho

¥ yey : .os ° %, eee ‘> @ : ee) ae4 ee ‘ eh weytone We 3 Tee ‘ a wiFas ° ‘= . a ere i YY ole a 4 ee ere mri: a ‘at,re ? ase | -aoai) Saath € < —. | ty os ACOnet uM

Ow SSFrans oa “~eee oeeee. EREee EDee egoe na ne: ae a oa reoio, ‘ ooo

ach POP cle >eS FMPea peeve MNBg Se te beBeNace mr gate BocE ONS eytah oe “ae “4

a bad . 7. ~ " € a m . e As far as | know, the billiard or pool table whose slate bed is

**2e

Figure 4. White Range gold-field, Aritunga, Northern Territory.

Shown here is the only one ever to be excavated. In 1903 this table

¢e--e.}e..

was brought by train from Adelaide to Oodnadatta and then by bullock wagon to the remote mining settlement, where it was housed in an

airy & x 10 m. billiard room until the O'Neils left soon after 1908. Copyright: Kate Holmes, the director of the excavation. 176 i

9. STUDYING RUSSIAN AMERICA: RESEARCH PROBLEMS {N NFED OF ATTENTION

Timothy (Ty) L. Dilliplane The study of Russtan America continues to offer a tremendous

challenge to historian and anthropologist alike. Of the various colontal pertods in North American history, and despite its vast eotential to the better understanding of those periods, Russian America ts one of the least researched and understood parts of our heritage. The problem is that there are relatively few historians wiio have specialized in this field, and even fewer anthropologists. for this reason, much remains to be learned about the Russian enterprise in North America. Richard Pierce, am internationally recoqnized historian of the period, tells us that: lt: North American terns the history of this region and period resembles what was known of French Canada and the Spanish Southwest a century and a

half ago.... We must stil] reconstruct it, and retrieve materials and facts needed to fill out

the record. Only then can we test old hypotheses effectively, devise new ones, and re-cxamine fundamental questions (1979:1). In an article entitled The Historical Archaevlagy cf Russian America: A Suggested Research Goal and Strategy (1983), | encouraged historical archaeologists researching Russian America to orient themselves toward

the delineation of behavioral patterns as a first priority.' | stated

my belief that only through the synthesis of archaeological, documentary, and oral history data can it be hoped that such patterns wit!)

be seen in their fullest possible extent.

The delineation of behavioral patterns within Russian America

is absolutely essential to a better understanding of Russian colonialism. Moreover, it would not appear to be unrealistic to follow through with such an approach. Indeed, cultural patterning in Stberia

has previously been noted by Senkevitch:

Just as Siberian folklore tends to he less vivid

and fantastic than that of the Upper Volga region, Siberian costumes and embroidery less exuberant than those of the Russian south and northeast, and Siberian folksongs more melancholy and

less melodic than those of western Russia, so too the buildings erected hy the Russian colonists in Siberia proved to be more austere than those found

west of the Urals. This proved especially the | case in eastern Siberia, where most of the fur trading settlements assumed a rather more utilitarian aspect and buildings evinced a more re-

: strained manipulation of form and detail (Senkevitch 1979:6). V7/

Pattern definition should increase our knowledge of day-to-day activities associated with various colonial Russian industries. It may also be used as both a check on the accuracy of historical reports about the involvement of native ethnic groups in those industries, as well as a method to recover data on the same subject. Further, ethnicity research can be expected to reveal acculturative information for both Russians and natives alike. The importance of delimiting ethnicity at historical sites is made clear by Marsha and Roger Kelly when they state that ''The ethnic homogeneity or heterogeneity

of a defined space ought to be as important as whether historic sites are present or not!’ (1980:136-137).

The Kellys also point out the need to confirm historical data on ethnicity by telling us ''...we should attempt to examine even the obviously clear ethnic affiliation of a site's occupants since complete reliance on historical documentation is not always adequate" (1980:138). Hence, data recovered from archaeological and oral history contexts is most important. A discussion of the potential of material culture studies to significantly contribute to ethnicity research

follows later in this article.

The utility of delineating behavioral patterns for Russian America is not limited to ethnicity studies. It is, for example, plausible that this approach will access information relating to

the social classes in the colonies. Wendell Oswalt's work at Kolma-

kovskiy Redoubt (49SLT001), a Russian settlement in southwest Alaska,

serves aS a good example. Possible class differences, as reflected

by artifacts, were suggested between the Creole and Eskimo laborers at the redoubt (Oswalt 1980:107). Settlement patterns can be discerned

as well. Douglas Veltre's fieldwork at Korovinski in the Aleutian Islands (49ATKOO2) revealed clear differences between traditional

Aleut and post-Russian contact settlement locations. Structural plans and types were also dissimilar (Veltre 1980:324-325). Data

concerning foreign influences within Russian America might also be

retrievable. Senkevitch, for example, has noted a California Spanish architectural influence in one of the buildings constructed by the Russians (no longer standing) at the present-day city of Kodiak, Alaska (1979:18). Pattern studies might also shed light on how the colonists conceived and organized their respective environments. Jim Deetz's definition of non-native, early America (U.S. eastern seaboard) mental templates through material culture studies (Deetz 1977) illus-

trates the potential of this research orientation. Deetz was able to

show that the earliest period of American history was characterized by a Middle Ages outlook, while a later period was distinguished by its orderly, Renaissance-like approach to life. Excavation of Russian

sites in America may result in the recording of patterns reflective of both medieval and renaissance viewpoints. An initial indicator of this is seen in Senkevitch's paper regarding the architecture of Russian America. He notes, for instance, that by the 1840's a neoclassical style of architecture seemed to be popular in the colonial

capital of Novo-Archangel'sk (present-day Sitka). However, concerning the town's thoroughfares he writes:

Narrow passages substitute for streets. There is

a randomness reflective more of medieval villages than of a planned community. New Archangel thus

maintained, even in the face of building activity

| that made it a veritable ''golden age,'' the aspect 178

of a study in contrasts (Senkevitch 1979:39).

Hence, it is possible that a parallel pattern exists in other categories of material culture. If so, important data concerning the transition of a specific European cultural group from a medieval

mind-set to a Renaissance outlook may be acquired.

he writes: ,

Perhaps one of the most promising research tools available in

the search for behavioral patterns is the artifactual assemblage.

James Deetz indicates the importance of material culture studies when

In spite of the richness and diversity of the historical record, there are things we want to

know that are not to be discovered from them. Simple people doing simple things, the normal, everyday routine of life and how these people

thought about it, are not the kinds of things

anyone thought worthy of noting. We know far more about the philosophical underpinnings of Puritanism than we do about what its practition-

ers consumed at countless meals. But all left behind the material residue of their existence, and it, too, is worth study (1977:8). The study of artifacts can be important to behavioral pattern/ethnicity Studies in several ways. First of all, individual objects may point to a particular activity type and/or ethnic background on their own. Kelly and Kelly (1980:138) believe that certain types of artifacts will be more useful in ethnicity studies than others: Those elements of material culture which are shown to have primary roles in facilitating social persistence or adaptation will be more

sensitive to ethnic identification purposes than other categories such as survival, recreation/entertainment, and so forth. Following up on this statement, tt would be tnterestinu, as a result of excavations at colonial Russian sites, to find out which artifact classes used by the Russians might have had ''primary roles in facilitating social persistence or adaptation.'' Such an effort might allow

the recovery of information concerning modified or unmodified Russian traditions which once existed in Russian America and which may be undocumented. Secondly, artifact groupings may also qive 15

new insights. A good example of this is seen in Vernon Baker's historical archaeological study of the flack Lucy Site in Massachusetts. His research uncovered possible ethnic traits that may be Afro-American in origin. In capsuled form, the results of Baker's work, when viewed

in the light of previous and similar efforts, indicates that one trait

distinguishable in the archaeological record which may he Afro-American is the high percentage of hollow-vware Furoamerican vessels found at the

sites investigated. Perhaps porsllel computations of ceramic sherds taken from colonial Russian sites would yield possible ethnic indicators as well. This is conceivable even theigh tt appears Russian

colonists bastecally used many of the same wrilitartan types found tin other Eturoamerican societies.“ The Kellys make the point that, just

because artifacts and features found at a ite may not be of the types that we would expect to have heen left behind by a particular ethnic group, does not mean that the people being studied had lost that 179

ethnicity (Kelly and Kelly 1980:135, 136). An excellent example of

such a situation can be seen in the artifacts recovered from the Parting Ways Site, a free Black Massachusetts community founded in the

latter half of the eighteenth century. Deetz tells us that:

-+-while the artifacts available to the members of the Parting Ways settlement were of necessity almost entirely Anglo-American, the rules by which they were put to use in functional combinations might have been Afro-American (1977:149; my emphasis).

This principal use of Anglo-American goods was at first deceiving to the excavators working at Parting Ways. As Deetz explains: The occupants of the site constructed their houses

differently, disposed of their trash differently,

arranged their community differently. But because

the artifacts themselves were so familiar to us, the essential difference were disguised behind

them, and only when a more basic consideration of different perceptions of the world was made did the picture come into focus (1977:153; my

emphasis).

In a similar manner, many artifacts found at colonial Russian sites have proven to be non-Russian in manufacture.» Such was the case, for example, at a site investigated in 1949 by Franklin Fenenga on

the Farallon Islands (off the coast of California). The Farallons were the location of a Russian fur-hunting post, and at one site

pottery believed to have been brought over by the Russians was found.

However, Pilling did an analysis of the specimens, resulting in the observation that ''little or none of the ceramic wares were of Russian manufacture, but rather they were of English or American production'' (Riddell 1955:12-13). In a like manner, Wendell Oswalt's work at Kolmakovskiy Redoubt showed that material culture from this site and

dating to the Russian period was, by far, not Russian at all, but

instead represents manufactures of a general Euroamerican context (Oswalt 1980:103-104) .4 Nevertheless, the absence of Russtan-made

artifacts in colonial Russian sites does not mean that the colonists ceased to be ''Russian'' in their lifeways. Pattern analysis of artifacts from such sites may be most rewarding in the definition of currently unknown, distinctively Russian activities. The comparative investigation of sites occupied by Russians and, following their withdrawal, by either the Americans, or the

English, will be greatly facilitated via behavioral pattern studies.

Indeed, differences between Russian and other Euroamerican artifact assemblages may be discerned through sensitive excavation techniques. Such was the case at Kolmakovskiy Redoubt: Oswalt was able to note dissimilarities between the artifact assemblages of the Russian and later U.S. periods (Oswalt 1980:102). In addition, Anne Shinkwin's excavations at the Russian Mission (also known as the Bishop's House; 49S1T009) discovered that the total percentages of each of two

general artifact categories were similar to those which define the Carolina Pattern, a pattern derived by Stanley South from colonial sites in North America (Shinkwin 1977:111-112). In short, the comparison of behavioral patterns from the Russian, English, and U.S. colonial periods may reveal striking differences and similarities not 180

previously seen. Concluding Comments . The archaeological investigation of Russian America is one of the least developed fields within colonial archaeology. At the same time it is one which requires our immediate attention. This is clear

lowing way: |

given the very imperfect state of our knowledge of Russian America.

The overriding need for basic data is stressed by Pierce in the folMuch more should be assembled regarding daily

life in Russian America. We need a more realistic idea of what life was like, and of the culture which was lost in 1867, or which slowly declined

thereafter. Native artifacts were cherished for their curiosity value, whereas Russian artifacts

of this period were commonplace in 1867, hence

they were used up, worn out, and eventually discarded. We need to know more about their uniforms and everyday dress, how they burned charcoal, about

their handicrafts, how they loaded ships, about their architecture, weapons, kitchen utensils, songs, reading matter, bookkeeping, social groups and holidays. At present we have only a foggy

idea of these matters, so that it is difficult to picture of the time in the schools. A study of

assemble museum exhibits, or to provide a coherent

existing sources, archaeology, and examining life of that day in eastern Siberia would help to narrow this gap (1979:15-16).

lt has been my contention in this article that the most effective way of recovering this needed data is via behavioral pattern studies.

18]

NOTES

I. In another article | defined a behavioral pattern as: ...a distinctive set of activities which characterizes and defines, or helps to characterize and define, a particular enterprise/function within

human society. Any one such enterprise/function may be distinguished by one or more behavioral

patterns, depending upon its complexity. ...It is possible that behavioral patterns defined for any type of enterprise at a particular site may vary in definition from those patterns associated with the same type of enterprise at another site. This might happen as a result of different ecological surroundings, populational compositions,

etc. ...In the final analysis, the degree to

which any behavioral pattern can be defined will depend directly on the amount of data available from the archaeological, documentary, and oral historical sources (Dilliplane 1981:241-242).

2. For example, a partial analysis of ceramic sherds recovered from the Redoubt St. Archangel Michael Site (also known as Old Sitka; 49S51T006) in Alaska shows that of a group of 264 sherds, 166

(or approximately 63%) were of the pearlware variety (Dilliplane:

1977).

3. This ts not surprising given the expense of shipping goods from European Russia, and the consequent dependence of the Russian

colonists on U.S. and English trading vessels.

4. It will be most interesting to determine how many and what types of artifacts in the Redoubt St. Archangel Michael collection are Russian made. This site was excavated by a CCC crew with no

archaeological training in the 1930's, and the artifacts have never received an tn-depth analysis. Over 1,000 artifacts were

uncovered by the CCC crew, and Barnett and Schumacher assert that

"'most'' of the specimens are ''definitely of Russian origin!" (Barnett and Schumacher 1967:8). However, this needs clarification. If "Russian origin''’ is intended to mean Euroamerican origin/usage by the Russians, then without a doubt this statement is correct; however, what remains to be seen is the percentage of the Euroamerican inventory which is Russian-made (i.e., in

Russia or her colonies), per se. 5. Prior to the sale of Russian America to the U.S. in 1867, the

Hudson's Bay Company, a rival to the Russian American Company,

took possession of the latter's Redoubt St. Dionysius by mutual agreement. This was the only instance in which a Russian colony was transferred to English control.

182

REFERENCES CITED

Barnett, Anthony W. and Paul J. F. Schumacher, 1967, An Analysis of the Archaeological Excavations by the U.S. Forest Service at Old

Sitka, Sitka, Alaska in 1934-1935. Manuscript on file with the

Office of History and Archaeology, Alaska Div. of Parks, Anchorage. Deetz, James, 1977, In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life, Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York.

Dilliplane, Timothy (Ty) L., 1977, Research Notes (manuscript), Old

Sitka ceramics analysis, Author's files.

---1981, ''Mining in Russian America: A Research Objective. Mining in Alaska's Past,'' edited by Michael S. Kennedy, Miscellaneous Publications, History and Archaeology Series No. 27 (Alaska Division of Parks), Alaska Historical Society, Anchorage. ---1983, ''The Historical Archaeology of Russian America: A Suggested Research Goal and Strategy,'' in Forgotten Places and Things: Archaeological Perspectives on American History, ed. by Albert E. Ward, Center for Anthropological Studies, Albuquerque, NM (in press).

Kelly, Marsha C. S., and Roger E. Kelly, 1980, ''Approaches to Ethnic Identification in Historical Archaeology,'' Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America, ed. by Robert L. Schuyler, RBaywood Publishing Company, Inc., Farmingdale, New York.

Oswalt, Wendell H., 1980, ''Kolmakovskiy Redoubt: The Ethnoarchaeology

of a Russian Fort in Alaska,'' Monumenta Archaeologica 8, The Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Pierce, Richard, 1979,"Little Known Bibliographic and Archival Materials on Russian America.'' Paper presented to the Conference on Russian America, sponsored by the American Historical Association and the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies.

Riddell, Francis A., 1955, ''Archaeological Excavations on the Farallon Islands, California,'’ Papers on California Archaeology, No. 34, University of California Archaeological Survey, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. Senkevitch, Anatole, Jr., 1979, "Early Architecture and Settlements of Russian America." Paper presented to the Conference on Russian America, sponsored by the American Historical Association anc the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies. Shinkwin, Anne D., 1977, 'Archaeological Excavation at the Russian

Mission, Sitka, Alaska--1975,'' National Park Service contract number CX-9000-5-0075. Report on file with the Sitka National Historical Park.

Veltre, Douglas W., 1980, Korovinski: The Ethnohistorical Archaeology of an Aleut and Russian Settlement on Atka Island, Alaska, Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Connecticut. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

183