The Routledge Handbook of Global Historical Archaeology 1138704059, 9781138704053

Citation preview

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF GLOBAL HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

The Routledge Handbook of Global Historical Archaeology is a multi-authored compendium of articles on specific topics of interest to today’s historical archaeologists, offering perspectives on the current state of research and collectively outlining future directions for the field. The broad range of topics covered in this volume allows for specificity within individual chapters, while building to a cumulative overview of the field of historical archaeology as it stands, and where it could go next. Archaeological research is discussed in the context of current sociological concerns, different approaches and techniques are assessed, and potential advances are posited. This is a comprehensive treatment of the sub-discipline, engaging key contemporary debates, and providing a series of specially commissioned geographical overviews to complement the more theoretical explorations. This book is designed to offer a starting point for students who may wish to pursue particular topics in more depth, as well as for non-archaeologists who have an interest in historical archaeology. Archaeologists, historians, preservationists, and all scholars interested in the role historical archaeology plays in illuminating daily life during the past five centuries will find this volume engaging and enlightening. Charles E. Orser, Jr. is Research Professor at Vanderbilt University and Research Adjunct at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, and Researcher with Timmins Martelle in London, Ontario. He is the author of several books including Historical Archaeology (2016, 3rd edition), A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World (1996), and An Archaeology of the English Atlantic World, 1600–1700 (2018). He is the founder and editor of the International Journal of Historical Archaeology, and a recipient of the J. C. Harrington Medal from the Society for Historical Archaeology. Andrés Zarankin is Professor of Archaeology at the University of Minas Gerais, Brazil, and Director of the Laboratory of Antarctic Studies in Human Sciences (LEACH-UFMG). His main research interests include Antarctic archaeology, archaeological theory, archaeology of dictatorship, and historical archaeology. Pedro Paulo A. Funari is Professor in the Department of History of the University of Campinas (Unicamp), Brazil. He is former World Archaeological Congress Secretary, author

of several books and papers and co-editor of Historical Archaeology, Back from the Edge (Routledge, 1999). Susan Lawrence is Professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia where she teaches archaeology. She is the author of several books and numerous publications on gender, material culture studies, urban archaeology, British colonialism, and industrial archaeology. Her current research focuses on landscape and environmental archaeologies of the Anthropocene. Susan is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London and the Australian Academy of the Humanities. James Symonds is Professor of Historical Archaeology at the University of Amsterdam. His edited and co-authored books include: The Historical Archaeology of the Sheffield Tableware and Cutlery Industries (2002); South Uist: Archaeology & History (2004); Industrial Archaeology: Future Directions (2005); Interpreting the Early Modern World: Transatlantic Perspectives (2010); Table Settings: The Material Culture and Social Context of Dining, AD 1700-1900 (2011); Historical Archaeologies of Cognition: Historical Archaeologies of Faith, Hope, and Charity (2013).

2

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF GLOBAL HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

Edited by Charles E. Orser, Jr., Andrés Zarankin, Pedro Paulo A. Funari, Susan Lawrence, and James Symonds

i~~~o~!~~n~~~up LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 selection and editorial matter, Charles E. Orser, Jr., Andrés Zarankin, Pedro Paulo A. Funari, Susan Lawrence, and James Symonds; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Charles E. Orser, Jr. and Andrés Zarankin to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Orser, Charles E., editor. | Zarankin, Andrés, editor. Title: The Routledge handbook of global historical archaeology / edited by Charles E. Orser, Jr. and Andrés Zarankin. Description: New York : Routledge, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019054842 (print) | LCCN 2019054843 (ebook) | ISBN 9781138704053 (hardback) | ISBN 9781315202846 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Archaeology and history. Classification: LCC CC77.H5 R68 2020 (print) | LCC CC77.H5 (ebook) | DDC 930.1–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019054842 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019054843 ISBN: 978-1-138-70405-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-20284-6 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK

CONTENTS

List of figures List of tables List of contributors

x xiii xiv

1 Introduction Charles E.Orser, Jr., Andrés Zarankin, Pedro Paulo A. Funari, Susan Lawrence, and James Symonds

1

PART 1

Historical development

11

2 A brief history of historical archaeology in the beginning of the twenty-first century Adam Fracchia

13

PART 2

Core issues and topics

39

3 Colonialism in historical archaeology: a review of issues and perspectives Stephen W. Silliman

41

4 Historical archaeology and the new ontologies: some experiences in Brazil Vinícius Melquíades and Bruno S. Ranzani da Silva

61

v

Contents

5 Race Anna S. Agbe-Davies

80

6 Intersectionality, queer archaeology, and sexual effects: recent advances in the archaeology of sexualities Megan E. Springate

95

7 Capitalism and globalization Jonathan Prangnell

117

8 Enslavement and emancipation Terrance Weik

133

9 Community engagement in the twenty-first century Sarah E. Miller

150

10 CRM/commercial historical archaeology in the twenty-first century J.W. Joseph

177

11 Conflict archaeology Iain Banks

192

12 Contemporary archaeology Laura McAtackney

215

13 Historical archaeology and technology Peter Davies

231

PART 3

Theoretical approaches

247

14 Becoming: senses and affects in historical archaeology José Roberto Pellini

249

15 On interdisciplinarity and historical archaeology Jeff Oliver

264

16 Critical theory Mark P. Leone

289

17 The politics of interpretation in historical archaeology Rui Gomes Coelho

298

vi

Contents

18 Feminist historical archaeology Elizabeth M. Scott

317

19 Marxism, historical archaeology, and the web of life LouAnn Wurst and Quentin Lewis

336

20 From an environmental historical archaeology to an historical ecoarchaeology Diogo Menezes Costa

353

21 Gender perspectives in South American archaeology: a look from Brazil Loredana Ribeiro and Lara de Paula Passos

370

22 Socio-economics and inequality in a comparative perspective: possibilities and problems in the mode of production approach Per Cornell

384

PART 4

Subjects

421

23 Isotope bioarchaeology in historical archaeology Kate Britton and Eric Guiry

423

24 Analyzing historical artefacts: progress and challenges Fernanda Codevilla Soares

443

25 “A distinction without a difference” at the Juh–Cushing battle site: primary narrative texts in historical inquiry Deni J. Seymour

458

26 Oral history Kerry Massheder-Rigby

478

27 Geographic information systems in historical archaeology Edward González-Tennant

496

28 Archaeology of architecture: buildings archaeology Agustín Azkarate

517

29 Landscape analysis Stephen Rippon

536

vii

Contents

30 Advances in gravestone and cemetery studies in the United States and the Commonwealth of Nations Sherene Baugher and Richard Veit

553

31 Interpretive directions for historical zooarchaeology in the twentyfirst century David B. Landon and Ana C. Opishinski

573

32 Faunistic analysis: emphasis on the southern hemisphere: why do bones matter? Discussing new contributions in historical zooarchaeology María Jimena Cruz 33 Floral analysis: impacts and innovations in historical paleoethnobotany Fernando J. Astudillo and Sarah Walshaw

594

618

PART 5

Regional overviews

637

34 The everyday and the longue durée: trans-historical archaeologies of Western Africa Natalie Swanepoel

639

35 Colonies, missions, violence and trade: the historical archaeology of Northeast Africa Alfredo González-Ruibal

660

36 Historical archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East Joanita Vroom 37 East and Southeast Asia at the age of contact: post-1500 archaeology of Asia Stephen Acabado and Ellen Hsieh

681

698

38 Oceania James L. Flexner

712

39 Caribbean historical archaeology in the twenty-first century Krysta Ryzewski

731

40 Historical archaeology in South and Central America Alasdair Brooks and Marcos André Torres de Souza

758

viii

Contents

41 Historical archaeology in Europe Natascha Mehler

780

42 Regional overview: UK and Ireland Harold Mytum

798

43 Recasting mobility and movement in Eastern North America: a fisheries perspective Barry Gaulton and Catherine Losier

828

44 Repercussions of rapid colonization: archaeological insights from the North American West Kelly J. Dixon

851

45 Maritime archaeology Ben Ford

894

46 Antarctic archaeology Andrés Zarankin and Melisa A. Salerno

915

Index

927

ix

FIGURES

4.1 Placement of witches, gnomes and stones. Date: 17 May 2017 4.2 Pictures and drawings of the ventaneira. Captured from Melquíades (2017) 5.1 Terms like “ethnic” and “ethnicity” still outnumber instances of “race” in historical archaeology’s longest-running journal, Historical Archaeology. However, the margin has narrowed in recent years 9.1 Highlights from the inaugural year of Heritage Monitoring Scouts (HMS Florida) 9.2 Community engaged on land to support the underwater investigation of the Slave Wrecks Project 13.1 Alluvial mining scar at Three Mile Creek, Victoria, Australia. The image uses GIS to combine a Google Earth base map with LiDAR elevation coloring, creek alignment and geo-sampling points 15.1 Stacked area graph showing trends in the number of papers per year using the terms: ‘interdisciplinary’, ‘multidisciplinary’, ‘cross-disciplinary’ and ‘transdisciplinary’ (and related root words) as published in the journal Historical Archaeology 1968–2017 25.1 Analytical tagging reminds the researcher where in the text potential interpretive dissonance exists while maintaining the context of the passages in the larger document 25.2 Schematic renderings allow actual geographic attributes obtained from maps and aerials to play a role in the equation, requiring adjustments to assumptions and direction of analysis as additional textual and visual elements are systematically incorporated 25.3 Diagramming a historical text allows us to visually understand the many potential meanings of every part of a sentence and its relation to other parts 25.4 This schematic drawing shows the distribution of archaeological loci identified, as they correspond to Moore’s assessment of battlefield distances 27.1 Evaluating the effects of storm surge on cemeteries in Duval County, Florida 27.2 Least cost pathway (LCP) analysis of 1706 French invasion of Nevis showing anisotropic lines 27.3 Fort Charles viewshed modeling 27.4 Mapping artifact densities at En Bas Saline, Haiti x

67 73

83 158 165

238

267

463

469 470 472 500 503 505 507

Figures

27.5 Charlestown Jewish Cemetery virtual world 28.1 Archaeology, below ground and above ground. Cathedral of Vitoria-Gasteiz. Basque Country 28.2 Journal of Building Archaeology (Spain) 28.3 Historic Quarter of Vitoria-Gasteiz. Basque Country 29.1 Transcription of the Combeinteignhead Tithe map, in Devon, UK, by Phil Knibb showing the pattern of land occupancy (recorded in the Tithe apportionment) that was highly fragmented in the vills of Netherton and Combeinteignhead itself, with virtually all the land in Buckland Barton lying within a single tenement 29.2 An example of giving a spatial context to documentary references: Puxton, in Somerset, UK 30.1 A New England-style cherub, carved in sandstone by Elizabethtown, New Jersey, carver Ebenezer Price marks the grave of Martha Winans (d. 1758). The marker, located in Madison, New Jersey’s Hillside or Bottle Hill Cemetery, reflects the middle stage in the tripartite evolutionary scheme: mortality image, cherub, urn and willow, proposed by Deetz and Dethlefsen 30.2 The Lewis Galdy marker now at St. Peter’s Anglican Church Cemetery in Port Royal, Jamaica, commemorates the Huguenot immigrant Galdy (1659–1739), who miraculously survived the destruction of Port Royal by the great earthquake of 1692. Its inscription reads: Here lies the body of Lewis Galdy who departed this life at Port Royal on December 22, 1739 aged 80. He was born in Montpelier in France but left that country for his religion and came to settle on this island where he was swallowed up in the Great Earthquake in the year 1692 and by the providence of God was by another shock thrown into the sea and miraculously saved by swimming until a boat took him up. He lived many years after in great reputation. Beloved by all and much lamented at his Death 30.3 A view in Kolkata’s Park Street Cemetery, burial place of many of the leaders of the English colonial effort in India. This image shows typical late eighteenthand early nineteenth-century memorials. Smoke wafts through the cemetery from burning brush, part of the maintenance efforts 30.4 The Cementerio Antiguo Municipal San Sebastian established in the 1820s is an excellent example of a nineteenth-century rural Puerto Rican cemetery. Laid out on an orthogonal plan it contains substantial masonry memorials, including niches and crypts, for local families 35.1 Map of NE Africa with main sites or areas mentioned in the text 35.2 Ruins of the complex of Azäzo-Gännätä Iyäsus, early seventeenth century. It is possible that this was the model for the royal palaces of Gondar, which were built only a couple of decades later 36.1 Fragment of Iznik ware from the Castle of Mytilene, Greece 36.2 Fragments of Iznik ware, found at excavations in Greece 37.1 Map of East and Southeast Asia, highlighting countries mentioned in the text 37.2 The Ifugao Rice Terraces, northern Luzon, Philippines. These agricultural marvels were once thought to be at least 2,000 years old. Recent archaeological investigations in the region have established the later inception of these terraces; a dating that is associated with the arrival of the Spanish conquest of the Philippines. Current models suggest that the builders of the terraces moved up xi

509 518 524 525

540 544

556

564

565

566 662

674 682 689 699

Figures

38.1 39.1 39.2

43.1 43.2

44.1

44.2

44.3

45.1 46.1 46.2 46.3 46.4

to the interior of the mountain range to consolidate economic and political resources, allowing them to resist multiple attempts by the Spanish at conquest Map of Oceania Map of the Circum-Caribbean region Memorial sculpture depicting the dark heritage of plantation-based slavery and the African slave trade displayed in V.C. Bird International Airport, Antigua. The sculpture was created by Cuban artist Osmany Perez Ortiz to honor of Antigua’s 35th anniversary of Independence in 2016 Northeastern North America showing sites discussed in the text Winter migrations in Notre Dame and Bonavista Bays (top); known references to the winter housing tradition along with the hypothetical distance wintering Europeans could travel into the interior of Newfoundland (bottom) Satellite image of the Earth at night showing the North American west and the Pacific. Note the vast, dark areas denoting the region’s vast, wide open spaces and the striking dichotomy between eastern and western North America overall. Exceptions in the west illustrate the rapidity of growth in the region’s urban centers Map showing a summary of the annual rainfall in North America between 1950–2000, showing the distinct change that occurs around the 100th meridian, with the well-watered east receiving much more annual rainfall than the arid west of the continent The effects of the Dust Bowl are illustrated in this photo from May 1936, in Dallas, South Dakota, showing buried machinery in a barn lot. The scene is an iconic representation of the twentieth-century ‘agricultural, ecological, and economic disaster’ on the Great Plains of North America Location of sites mentioned in the text Archaeological site of a sealers’ camp Archaeological fieldwork at a sealers’ site Pictures of shoes of the archaeological collection Pictures of the ‘sensorial dome’ which houses a full-scale archaeological site reconstruction

xii

705 714 732

747 833

842

856

857

876 895 918 919 921 922

TABLES

9.1 9.2 9.3 36.1 36.2 41.1

42.1 42.2

43.1 44.1

Recipients of SHA awards related to community engagement SHA blog posts tagged by the Public Education and Interpretation Committee (https://sha.org/blog/category/public-education-and-interpretation) Journals publishing community engagement in historical archaeology The importance of food- and drink-related objects within Ottoman households in late 17th- and early 18th-century Damascus The monetary values of food- and drink-related objects within Ottoman households in late 17th- and early 18th-century Damascus List of European university teaching positions, compiled in October 2018. Excluded are countries where historical archaeology is not taught (Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Kosovo, Malta, Moldavia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slowakia). The table distinguishes between tenured and temporary/untenured positions and between genders. The tenured lecturers include professors, assistant professors, readers and lecturers. The category ‘other teaching staff’ includes temporary posts that are third-party funded or – as in the case of the German-speaking countries – untenured lecturers. The list is intended solely for guidance, since there are vast structural differences between the individual countries. Moreover, only very few positions are purely limited to historical archaeology and most roles include the archaeology of earlier periods in their teaching remit Books and monographs published by the major organizations promoting historical archaeology in Britain and Ireland Heritage agencies for the jurisdictions in Britain and Ireland. Each has separate legislation and heritage policies which include different attitudes to historical archaeology, particularly the end date at which sites may be within the terms of such legislation Governance of Saint-Pierre et Miquelon, 1536 to present Themes of historical archaeological inquiry in the west as observed in recent publications: a rough sort

xiii

152 153 155 690 690

784 800

801 834 853

CONTRIBUTORS

Stephen Acabado is Associate Professor of Anthropology at UCLA. His archaeological investigations in Ifugao, northern Philippines, have established the recent origins of the Cordillera Rice Terraces, which were once known to be at least 2,000 years old. Dr. Acabado directs the Ifugao Archaeological Project, a collaborative research program between the University of California-Los Angeles and the Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement, Inc (SITMo). Dr. Acabado’s work revolves around agricultural systems, indigenous responses to colonialism, subsistence shifts, landscape archaeology, and heritage conservation. He is a strong advocate of an engaged archaeology where descendant communities are involved in the research process. Anna S. Agbe-Davies is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Her research interests include the African diaspora; classification and typology; modern material culture; public and engaged archaeology; and pragmatism. Fernando J. Astudillo is an Assistant Professor of Archaeology at San Francisco de Quito University, Ecuador. He holds a PhD in Archaeology (2017, Simon Fraser University, Canada). His main research interests include Environmental Archaeology, Historical Ecology, Paleoethnobotany, and the Archaeology of Colonialism in South America. His research focuses on exploring the environmental effects of colonialism in the Galápagos Islands. Agustín Azkarate is Professor of Archaeology at the University of the Basque Country and Director of the UNESCO Cultural Landscapes and Heritage Chair. He works in Europe in archaeology of architecture, cultural heritage, and early medieval history of the Basque Country. He also participates in various American projects. Iain Banks is a leading conflict archaeologist, and is a senior lecturer at the University of Glasgow. He has been working on conflict sites since 1999, carrying out fieldwork across Europe and in Africa. He is co-founder of the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology at the University of Glasgow, and co-founder and editor of the Journal of Conflict Archaeology. As an archaeologist, he directed a major British contract archaeology unit for the University of xiv

Contributors

Glasgow and directed excavations across Scotland; he has also conducted geophysical surveys across the world. Together with Tony Pollard, he was responsible for developing the Inventory of Scottish Battlefields on behalf of Historic Scotland (now Historic Environment Scotland), which was the first time that Scottish battlefields received any form of recognition or protection. His current research is focused on prisoner-of-war camps and their inmates, in the course of which he worked on Stalag Luft III, the location of the Great Escape, and on Cultybraggan in Perthshire, the best preserved prisoner of war camp in Scotland. Sherene Baugher is a Professor at Cornell University, New York. Her research is on class, ethnicity, inequality, cultural landscapes, gravestones studies, and urban archaeology. She coauthored with Richard Veit The Archaeology of American Cemeteries and Gravemarkers and coedited Urban Archaeology, Municipal Government and Local Planning. Kate Britton is a Senior Lecturer in Archaeological Science at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. Her research focuses on the application of isotope analysis for the reconstruction of past diets, movement patterns, and environments. Recent research in the historical period has focused on dietary reconstruction (and age-at-weaning) in Britain’s past. Alasdair Brooks is the Heritage Manager for the British Red Cross, with oversight of the museum and archive collections. His research interests include 19th-century British ceramics in global context; post-medieval nationalism and national identity; and international comparative heritage and collections management practice. Rui Gomes Coelho is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World, Brown University, and a researcher at UNIARQ – Center for Archaeology, University of Lisbon. He is an archaeologist interested in historical archaeology, archaeology of the contemporary, critical heritage studies, and photography. Per Cornell is a Professor at Gothenburg University. He has taught at universities in Sweden, Argentina, Nicaragua, the Iberian Peninsula, Sri Lanka, Italy, and France, and has directed archaeological fieldwork in Argentina, Sri Lanka, Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, and Sweden. Recent major projects have included a project financed by the Swedish Research Council (VR) on the Early Modern Town, which also articulated strongly to a major contract archaeology operation on the old town of Nya. He has special interests in settlement organization and the social, in socioeconomic processes, Marxism, colonialism, and encounters. Diogo Menezes Costa is a Professor of the graduate program in Anthropology at the Federal University of Pará, Brazil. Professor Costa has a PhD in Anthropology from the University of Florida, Gainesville, USA, and is the leader of the Historical Archaeology of Amazon research group. He is an expert in Historical and Environmental Archaeology and has conducted research projects in these fields at different sites in northern and central Brazil. María Jimena Cruz is a PhD student in Anthropology with historical archaeological orientation at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Her study interests include the process of conformation of the modern world, zooarchaeological studies, alimentary practices, and archaeological theory.

xv

Contributors

Peter Davies is a Senior Research Fellow in Archaeology at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. His research interests include urban landscapes and the environmental archaeology of gold mining. He is the author of several books, including the co-authored An Archaeology of Australia Since 1788 (2011, with Susan Lawrence). Kelly J. Dixon is a Professor of Anthropology at the University of Montana, USA. Dixon has lived and worked in the North American West for over 20 years. Her research and publications include case studies representing archaeological narratives from the past several centuries. Dixon’s recent research emphasizes the ways in which archaeological investigations of the modern world can help democratize the histories of people who have been marginalized in mainstream presentations of the past. As noted in her recent publication, “Historical Archaeologies of the American West” (2014), archaeological inquiry from the recent past can be used to address issues facing people living today, including decolonization, global change, resilience, social justice, and sustainability. In 2017, the Journal of Archaeological Research highlighted Dixon’s paper as one of ten articles published in the last 25 years that exemplify the journal’s high-impact mission to effectively draw in readers with various backgrounds to facilitate dialogue across many fields. James L. Flexner is Lecturer in Historical Archaeology and Heritage at the University of Sydney. His research focuses on historical archaeology and landscape archaeology in the Pacific Islands, primarily Hawai’i, Vanuatu, and Tasmania. James is author of An Archaeology of Early Christianity in Vanuatu (Australian National University Press). Ben Ford is Professor and Chair of Anthropology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA. His research focuses on maritime cultural landscapes, mid-continental historical archaeology, and heritage management. He is a former Archaeological Institute of America McCann-Taggart Underwater Archaeology Lecturer and author of The Shore Is a Bridge: The Maritime Cultural Landscape of Lake Ontario and Our Blue Planet: An Introduction to Maritime and Underwater Archaeology. Adam Fracchia is a historical archaeologist who studies the processes of urbanization and industrialization and their impact on the modern world and everyday life. His work has focused on labor and the material and spatial evolution of the Baltimore metropolitan region. He earned his degree in anthropology from the University of Maryland, College Park, where he is an associate research professor. Pedro Paulo A. Funari is Professor in the Department of History at the University of Campinas, Brazil, a former World Archaeological Congress secretary, and co-editor of Historical Archaeology: Back from the Edge (1999). Barry Gaulton is an Associate Professor in the Department of Archaeology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada, and Director of the Ferryland Archaeology Project. His current research interests focus on the historical archaeology of Northeastern North America with particular reference to the early modern cod fishery, European settlement, and the insitu development of non-pastoral transhumance. Alfredo González-Ruibal is a researcher with the Institute of Heritage Sciences of the Spanish National Research Council. His work focuses on the archaeology of the contemporary past and African archaeology. His most recent book is An Archaeology of the Contemporary Era (2019). xvi

Contributors

Edward González-Tennant is a Lecturer in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Central Florida, USA. He has written extensively on the application of emerging technologies within historical archaeology. He is also the author of The Rosewood Massacre: An Archaeology and History of Intersectional Violence (2018). Eric Guiry is a Banting Postdoctoral Fellow and Archaeological Scientist in the Department of Anthropology at Trent University, Peterborough, Canada. His research emphasizes the use of stable isotope techniques for understanding past cultural and biological phenomena. Eric’s recent research has focused on human–animal relationships as a means of informing us about the ecological, economic, social, and sensorial dimensions of the historical past. Ellen Hsieh is Assistant Professor in the Institute of Anthropology at National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. She is a historical archaeologist who applies interdisciplinary approaches to investigate the long-term dynamics of trade and colonialism in maritime Asia, and how the region was incorporated into global history. She has worked in Taiwan, China, the Philippines, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia. J.W. (Joe) Joseph is a historical archaeologist with New South Associates, Inc, a CRM consultant in Stone Mountain, Georgia, USA. Dr. Joseph has served on the Board of Directors of the Society for Historical Archaeology (where he is Past President), the American Cultural Resources Association, and the Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists, and has been engaged in CRM archaeology since 1976. David B. Landon is the Associate Director of the Andrew Fiske Memorial Center for Archaeological Research and graduate program Director in historical archaeology at the University of Massachusetts Boston. His primary research project currently is a reanalysis of the archaeology of the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts, supported by a Collaborative Research Grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Susan Lawrence teaches historical archaeology at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. She is a past president of the Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology and author, with Peter Davies, of An Archaeology of Australia Since 1788 (2011). Her research interests include colonization, gender, material culture, industrial archaeology and urban archaeology. Her most recent book, Sludge: Disaster on Victoria’s Goldfields (2019), also with Peter Davies, is an environmental archaeology of mining. Mark P. Leone is a Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Maryland, USA, and is a historical archaeologist. His work has been in Annapolis, Maryland, as well as on Maryland’s Eastern Shore at Wye House, Wye Hall, and the town of Easton, Talbot County. For much of his work, he has concentrated on African-American materials. In Annapolis and in Easton, he has worked with modern African-American communities who are interested in the archaeology of people who were free before emancipation. Mark Leone has provided dissertation materials for graduate students from Maryland and many other doctoral programs around the country, thus leading to a strong published corpus of material on Critical Theory in historical archaeology, as well as on African-American historical archaeology. Quentin Lewis is the Collections and Programs Manager at the Yager Museum and Lecturer in Museum Studies at Hartwick College, New York. His scholarship has focused on xvii

Contributors

landscape change and the role of race and class in the modern world. Recent publications include “An Archaeology of Improvement in Rural New England: Landscapes of Profit and Betterment” (2016) and “Manure Manufactories: Materializing the Metabolic Rift in Deerfield, Massachusetts” (2013). Catherine Losier is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Archaeology at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. Her research in historical archaeology focuses on colonialism and its enduring legacies, cultural interactions, colonial economies, and identities. To examine the plurality of French colonial experience, she is conducting research in French Guiana and Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. Kerry Massheder-Rigby is completing her PhD at the University of Liverpool, UK. She has over ten years of experience in commercial and community archaeology, has managed oral history projects in conjunction with National Museums Liverpool, and is the Honorary Treasurer of the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology. Laura McAtackney is an Associate Professor in the Department of Archaeology and Heritage Studies at Aarhus University, Denmark (since 2015) and she was recently appointed a Docent in Contemporary Historical Archaeology at the University of Oulu in Finland (since 2019). Her research uses contemporary archaeology and critical heritage approaches to social justice issues, including long-term studies on political imprisonment in Ireland (Long Kesh/Maze prison and Kilmainham Gaol) and post-conflict Northern Ireland (especially segregation walls), gendered perspectives on the past and the experiences and memory of the colonial Caribbean. She is currently the PI for an Independent Research Fund Denmark Project 2 collaboration Enduring Materialities of Colonialism: temporality, spatiality and memory on St Croix, USVI (EMoC) (2019–2023), a Co-I on ARCHAEOBALT (2018–2021), an EU-Interreg South Baltic project on promoting archaeological tourism and is part of the OPEN HEART CITY collective working with Magdalene Laundries in Ireland. Natascha Mehler is a historical archaeologist at the German Maritime Museum in Bremerhaven and at the Department of Prehistory and Historical Archaeology at the University of Vienna, Austria. She is also Honorary Reader at the Institute for Northern Studies at the University of the Highlands and Islands. She is very much interested in the methodology of historical archaeology and has also worked a lot with Central and Northern European material culture from the medieval and post-medieval period. Sarah E. Miller is Regional Director for the Florida Public Archaeology Network hosted by Flagler College, USA. Her research interests include historical archaeology, community engagement, site stewardship, advocacy, and cemeteries. Recent publications include “Municipal Archaeology Policies as a Vector in Public Outreach Programs” and “Cemeteries as Participatory Museums” (an article in Advances in Archaeological Practice). Jeff Oliver is a Senior Lecturer in Archaeology at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. His research focuses on historic landscapes in Western Canada and Scotland. He is the author of Landscapes and Social Transformations on the Northwest Coast: Colonial Encounters in the Fraser Valley (University of Arizona Press, 2010).

xviii

Contributors

Ana C. Opishinski is currently the digital assets project manager for Plimoth Plantation museum. Her recently completed Master’s thesis, “Eat this in remembrance: The zooarchaeology of secular and religious sites in 17th-century New Mexico,” explores Spanish colonialism in the southwestern United States. Charles E. Orser, Jr. is Research Professor at Vanderbilt University and Research Adjunct at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, and Researcher with Timmins Martelle in London, Ontario. He is the author of several books including Historical Archaeology (2016, 3rd edition), A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World (1996), and An Archaeology of the English Atlantic World, 1600–1700 (2018). He is the founder and editor of the International Journal of Historical Archaeology, and a recipient of the J. C. Harrington Medal from the Society for Historical Archaeology. Jonathan Prangnell is Associate Professor and Reader in Historical Archaeology and Cultural Heritage in the School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Australia. His research interests include the development of the social relations of production in late 19thand early-20th-century capitalist Queensland. This interest has recently been channeled into a multi-institutional study of the social archaeology of Australian South Sea Islander communities. He has also published widely on the taphonomic and social transformations that result in the archaeological record of historic period burials. Jon is a past president of the Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology, is on the editorial board of the International Journal of Historical Archaeology, on the Brisbane City Council Heritage Advisory Committee, and is an Honorary Research Fellow of the Queensland Museum. Lara de Paula Passos, archaeologist, currently a graduate student in the terminal Master of Arts program in Anthropology – with a concentration in Archaeology – at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil. Her study interests include archaeology and/of gender, feminist archaeology, historical archaeology, African Diaspora, and blackness. José Roberto Pellini is Adjunct Professor at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil, and General Director of the Brazilian Archaeological Program in Egypt and of the Laboratory of Sensory Archaeology. He has dedicated himself to the study of Senso-affective Archaeology, Decolonial Aesthetics, Ontology, New Materialist Theories, and Posthuman theories. Loredana Ribeiro is Professor at the Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, Federal University of Pelotas, Brazil. Her main research interests include archaeological ethnography and historical archaeology, focusing on Afro-descendant communities and women’s work. Lately she has also been dedicated to investigating epistemic sexism-racism internalized in the disciplinary practices of archaeology. She is the author of several articles and chapters on these three subjects. Stephen Rippon is Professor of Landscape Archaeology at the University of Exeter, UK. His research interests include the origins and development of historic landscapes across North West Europe, which he studies using strongly inter-disciplinary approaches. His recent books include Historic Landscape Analysis (2nd ed., 2012) and Making Sense of an Historic Landscape (2012).

xix

Contributors

Krysta Ryzewski is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at Wayne State University, USA. Her historical archaeological research in North America and the Caribbean (Montserrat) is widely published and has been featured in Science. Publications include Contemporary Archaeology and the City: Creativity, Ruination, and Political Action (2017, with L. McAtackney). Melisa A. Salerno is a researcher at the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research in Argentina (CONICET). Her research interests in historical archaeology include Patagonian and Antarctic Archaeology, the study of dress and the body, the dynamics of identity and experience, interethnic relations. She has edited several books, including Memories from Darkness: Archaeology of Repression and Resistance in Latin America (2009, with P. Funari and A. Zarankin) and Coming to Senses: Topics in Sensory Archaeology (2015, with J. Pellini and A. Zarankin), among others. Elizabeth M. Scott is a historical archaeologist whose research involves colonial archaeology, feminist archaeology, zooarchaeology, and social theory. She received her doctorate in anthropology from the University of Minnesota, USA. She is the editor of Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in Historical Archaeology (1994) and Archaeological Perspectives on the French in the New World (2017). Deni J. Seymour is an archaeologist, ethnographer, and ethnohistorian with a three-decade personal and professional investment in knowledge about and interaction with the indigenous tribes of the southern portion of the American Southwest. She has a PhD in anthropology and is a widely published, award-winning author. She applies information gained from the study of human behavior and diversity to understand the past and to inform and shape approaches to issues of concern to modern-day tribes. Her current work focuses on various Apachean groups, the O’odham, and the Jumano, among others, using multiple lines and forms of evidence to weave together information relevant to heritage and identity. Stephen W. Silliman is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Massachusetts Boston, USA. He has conducted fieldwork in the Northeastern and Western USA, Bermuda, and Japan. He has published Lost Laborers in Colonial California (2004), Historical Archaeology (with Martin Hall, 2006), Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge (2008), and Engaging Archaeology (2018), along with more than 40 articles, book chapters, and other essays. Fernanda Codevilla Soares is a Postdoctoral Fellow at LEACH-UFMG. Her current research interests are the analyses of historic vestiges and the elaboration of mediating actions with the non-archaeological public. She has published articles and books related to those areas and historical archaeology. Nowadays she is working with Antarctica archaeology. Marcos André Torres de Souza is Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. He received his bachelor degree from the Universidade Estácio de Sá, Rio de Janeiro, master degree from Universidade Federal de Goiás, doctoral degree from Syracuse University, EUA, and post-doctorate from Museu Nacional / UFRJ (CNPq). Researcher from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). His research interest is focused on the investigation of Brazilian historical sites and, specially, those related to the African Diaspora.

xx

Contributors

Megan E. Springate is a Postdoctoral Associate with the Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland College Park, USA. A historical archaeologist with experience in academia, museums, federal service, and cultural resource management, her research interests include identity formation and expression, intersectionality, and their relationships with capitalist states. She is the author of Coffin Hardware in Nineteenth-Century America (2014) and editor of LGBTQ America: A Theme Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer History (2016). Richard Veit is Professor of Anthropology and Chair of Monmouth University’s Department of History and Anthropology, UK. His research focuses on commemoration, symbolism, vernacular architecture, and military site archaeology. He is the author or co-author of seven books including The Archaeology of American Cemeteries and Gravemarkers with Sherene Baugher (2014). Joanita Vroom is Professor of the Archaeology of Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia at the Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, The Netherlands), specializing in medieval and post-medieval archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (including the Byzantine, Islamic, Crusader, and Ottoman periods). She takes a particular interest in the social-economic (production and distribution) and cultural aspects (cuisine and dining habits) of ceramics in these societies and is series editor of the Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series at Brepols Publishers. Sarah Walshaw is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of History at Simon Fraser University, Canada. She holds a PhD in Anthropology (2005, Washington University in St. Louis, USA) and has conducted archaeological and ethnobotanical fieldwork in Tanzania and Madagascar. She is interested in non-mechanized farming systems, the local logics of East African farmers, and the use of foodways to connect with – and contest – early globalizations in the Indian Ocean world. Terrance Weik is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of South Carolina, USA. His research explores African diasporan cultural origins, freedom seeking initiatives, community building processes, struggles with inequalities, and social identities. Weik’s publications include The Archaeology of Antislavery Resistance (2012). LouAnn Wurst is a Professor in the Industrial Heritage and Archaeology program at Michigan Technological University, USA. Her research focuses on the historical archaeology of class and labor, the development of capitalist agriculture, and workers’ experiences. Recent publications include “Capitalism in Motion” with Stephen A. Mrozowski (2016), “The Historical Archaeology of Capitalist Dispossession” (2015), and “Toward a Collective Historical Archaeology” (2015). Andrés Zarankin is Professor of Archaeology at the University of Minas Gerais, Brazil, and Director of the Laboratory of Humans Science’s studies in Antarctica (LEACH-UFMG). His main research interests include Antarctic archaeology, archaeological theory, archaeology of dictatorship, and historical archaeology.

xxi

1 INTRODUCTION Charles E. Orser, Jr., Andrés Zarankin, Pedro Paulo A. Funari, Susan Lawrence, and James Symonds

Introduction Historical archaeology has already proved its potential for the study of global archaeologies and the processes that created the modern world (Orser, 2002). From different perspectives and in several geographical locations, historical archaeologists have been able to shed light on social, economic, ideological, and ecological aspects of global expansion and the transformations of the basic structures which constitute the contemporary world. Archaeological analyses have focused on a myriad of concepts and subjects including various approaches to artifact studies, bioarchaeology, studies of capitalism, colonialism, and critical archaeologies of race, class, and gender in urban, rural, and a wide range of national and transnational settings. By way of orientation, information on the state of historical archaeology in North America at the end of the 20th century may be found in two useful review articles by Robert Paynter (2000a, 2000b). Contributions to historical archaeology over the last 20 years or so have had a unique impact in shaping a worldwide definition of global historical archaeology. Charles Orser’s classic A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World (1996), along with his International Journal of Historical Archaeology (founded in 1997), together with several handbooks and encyclopedias (e.g. Encyclopaedia of Historical Archaeology C. Orser, ed. 2002, and the International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, T. Majewski and D. Gaimster, eds, 2009) and the Plenum Kluwer/Springer book series Contributions to Global Historical Archaeology have all served to internationalize research in historical archaeology by drawing attention to the long-term processes that have shaped the modern world from a global and interconnected perspective. The two most recent textbooks dealing with historical archaeology have followed Charles Orser’s call for globalized historical archaeologies (Hall and Silliman, 2006; Hicks and Beaudry, 2006). A concise overview of developments in historical archaeology up to 2010, focusing on four areas of research: analytical scale, capitalism, social inequality, and heritage and memory, may be found in Orser (2010). In this respect it is perhaps worth recalling that prior to the mid-1990s the sub-discipline had been geographically fragmented. In the United States it was narrowly defined as ‘historic sites archaeology,’ or post-prehistoric archaeology which studied ‘the material manifestations of the expansion of European culture into the non-European world starting in the 15th

1

Charles E. Orser, Jr. et al.

century and ending with industrialization or the present depending on conditions’ (Schuyler, 1970, 84). James Deetz famously reworked this definition of historical archaeology in his still valuable book, In Small Things Forgotten, suggesting that historical archaeology should be concerned with ‘the archaeology of the spread of Europeans throughout the world since the 15th century and their impact on indigenous people’ (1977, 5). While Deetz’s new emphasis drew much needed attention to the deleterious impacts of European expansion on indigenous peoples his work nevertheless maintained a resolutely New World perspective. In essence, Deetz’s historical archaeologies were all about tracing shifts in identities and circumstances, and the process of becoming American. Indeed, in retrospect it could be argued that his well-intentioned narrative merely cast indigenous peoples as passive recipients of European oppression and harm. Mark P. Leone took a different line, identifying the growth of global capitalism as the object of study for historical archaeology, exposing the hypocrisy of early American Republican merchants such as William Paca of Annapolis, whose wealth was founded on the transnational movement and labor of enslaved African men and women (Leone, 1995). Leone’s work built upon a proud tradition of American leftist anthropology incorporating European Marxist critical theory, and gave an active voice and agency to oppressed African Americans (Leone, 1995). Mark Leone’s many publications may be characterized by their concern for social justice and a desire to expose the way in which capitalism disguises its workings and makes use of racist constructions to fulfill its needs (Leone, 2005, 2010). In this respect Leone, like other post-WWII American scholars (Ferguson, 1992), was reflecting upon the persistence of private and publicly institutionalized forms of racism in the wake of the hardwon achievements of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, archaeologists in Australia and New Zealand were also beginning to investigate the material record of the recent past. Early work by Judy Birmingham (1976), Jim Allen (1973), and Ian Jack (1985) in Australia was all informed by the intersection of experience and/or training in Old World archaeology and in the disciplines of history and geography. The discovery of several 17th-century Dutch shipwrecks off the coast of Western Australia ensured that maritime perspectives also played a role (Green, 1989). In New Zealand, Peter Coutts (1972), Nigel Prickett (1981), and Neville Ritchie (1986) drew on the close relationship between archaeology and anthropology in that country. While Australians implicitly adopted a definition similar to that of Deetz, in New Zealand the study of settler colonialism was much more closely integrated with the long and continuing trajectory of Maori occupation (Lawrence, 2013). In 1992, the renaming of the Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology to explicitly include New Zealand formalized a relationship of increasing strength that has continued to foster a comparative international approach. Historical archaeology has presented a heterogeneous development in South America, especially after the end of military dictatorships and the consolidation of democratic governments. According to Pedro Funari (1994, 1996, 2002), Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay have traditionally stood out in this field of study. Professionals from these three countries have written most of South America’s modern literature on historical archaeology (Zarankin and Salerno, 2008, and Brooks and Torres de Souza in this book). It was only in the closing years of the last century, however, that historical archaeology in the northern hemisphere truly broadened its scope to include a more open and international perspective. Notwithstanding the many artifact-oriented studies by the late Ivor Noël Hume, Matthew Johnson’s An Archaeology of Capitalism (1996) was arguably the first 2

Introduction

book to use historical archaeology to reconnect the Old and New Worlds. Inspired by his participation in Leone’s Archaeology in Annapolis field school, Johnson was able to demonstrate that the widely used ‘Georgian Order’ thesis which described the 18th-century American quest for order, symmetry, and individualism in daily life, as proposed by Henry Glassie in his study of folk housing in Virginia (1975) and subsequently developed and championed by Deetz (1977) and Leone (1988), had its roots in late medieval England. Martin Hall, formerly Professor of Archaeology at the University of Cape Town, developed a similar comparative perspective on the material conditions of everyday life with case studies from the colonial Chesapeake (Virginia and Maryland, USA) and the Cape region of South Africa (Hall, 2000). British imperialism likewise provided the framework for comparative studies of several former British colonies (e.g. Lawrence, 2003). By the late-1990s the rise of the internet and the global reach of many Anglophone publishing houses had disseminated key texts by American historical archaeologists around the world and likewise made international work more visible to American scholars. Rather than focusing on the origins of American life and the circulation of people and commodities in the early modern Atlantic world in the recent past, the Swedish archaeologist Anders Andrén argued that historical archaeology should be regarded as a methodology that could be extended to include the archaeology of all historical societies (Andrén, 1998). At about the same time Pedro Funari, Martin Hall, and Siăn Jones led a movement to promote a broader scope for historical archaeology through the auspices of the Routledge One World Archaeology World Archaeological Congress book series (1999). Their innovative approach effectively shifted the emphasis of historical archaeology from the study of White Europeans in the Global North, to the study of other societies, with their own experiences and understandings of ‘modernity.’ In line with wider developments in the humanities, historical archaeology was extended to include multiple scales and voices (Gilchrist, 2005). Hand-in-hand with this re-orientation, prominent scholars such as Matthew Johnson called for new perspectives in a field that was still dominated by the narratives of American scholarship (Johnson, 2006). In the early years of the new millennium the de-colonization of historical archaeology proceeded with vigor (Croucher and Weiss, 2011; Gosden, 2001; Leone, 2009; Lydon and Rizvi, 2016; McNiven and Russell, 2005). One important development here has been moves to create alternative narratives for the archaeology of African societies based on indigenous oral traditions (Reid and Lane, 2004) and to view the African diaspora as a transcontinental process ripe for multi-site and multi-scalar investigations (Ogundiran and Falola, 2007). Equally important has been the emergence of dynamic archaeologies that reposition First Peoples within the recent and contemporary pasts of modern post-colonial societies around the world (e.g. Beck and Somerville, 2005; Byrne, 2003; Ferris et al., 2014). Other historical archaeologists have intensified research into archaeologies of gender and sexuality (Casella, 2000; Gilchrist, 2012; Voss, 2000; Voss and Casella, 2011; Wilkie and Hayes, 2006). The archaeology of urban neighborhoods and industrializing societies have also been examined and problematized by a new generation of scholars (Casella and Symonds, 2005; Mayne and Murray, 2001; McAtackney and Ryzewski, 2017; Mrozowski, 2006; Symonds, 2004; Symonds and Casella, 2006; Yamin, 2001). At the same time the close interest which historical archaeologists have always shown in material culture and artifact studies has continued and has moved beyond issues of chronology, dating, and provenance, with the publication of several nuanced microhistories of household material culture

3

Charles E. Orser, Jr. et al.

(Beaudry, 2007; Brookes, 2016; Loren and Beaudry, 2006; White, 2009; White and Beaudry, 2009). In the 21st century historical archaeology has also moved closer to the heart of the study of modernity. For a long time, historians and social scientists recognized archaeology as a useful technique for the study of the remote past, particularly prehistoric or ancient societies, which might lack adequate written sources. Modernity created an explosion of written evidence, however. It therefore took a long time to acknowledge the unique opportunities offered by material evidence for the study of the last few centuries. In the last 20 years historical archaeology has proved to be a useful perspective for both historians and social scientists, not only in providing new forms of evidence, but also by providing new interpretive frameworks and insights, as demonstrated in this volume. An understanding of modernity requires a consideration of the changes in relationships between individuals, as well as between individuals and things (Zarankin and Salerno, 2002). This theoretical perspective forces archaeologists to analyze singularities in local practices, deconstructing hegemonic discourses and stressing the multiple trajectories upon which different societies were built. In the last 20 years a new and vibrant field of contemporary archaeology has emerged, with the development of archaeologies of the contemporary past (Buchli and Lucas, 2001). A new movement which began with the CHAT (Contemporary Historical Archaeology and Theory) conference organized by Angela Piccini and Dan Hicks at Bristol University in the UK in 2003 has matured to become an important field of historical archaeology in its own right and is now supported by several textbooks and monographs (Graves-Brown et al., 2013; Harrison and Schofield, 2010; Holtorf and Piccini, 2009) as well as the Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, published by Equinox. Two further subject areas of terrestrial historical archaeology may be singled out as having experienced significant growth and internationalization in the last two decades: battlefield or conflict archaeology, and so-called ‘transformative archaeologies’ which make the case for archaeology as a form of political action and activism. With their focus on 20th- and 21st-century landscapes, sites, and communities, both of these subject areas have overlapped with the research interests of contemporary historical archaeologists. They have, nevertheless, developed from very different roots. Battlefield archaeology in Europe was inspired by the community-based metal-detecting methodologies which had been used to reconstruct the Battle of the Little Bighorn in the 1980s by the US National Park Service (Fox and Scott, 1991; Scott and McFeaters, 2011). In response, British special interest groups started projects to recover evidence on several high-profile medieval and later battlefield sites in the UK (Carman, 2013; Sutherland, 2010). The anniversaries of the World Wars also led to an upsurge of interest among volunteer groups in recovering the remains of these wars in Belgium, and elsewhere in Europe (Saunders, 2004, 2010, 2012). The realization that the impacts and traces of warfare are not limited to battlefields, but may also be found in supply depots and in a variety of infrastructure as well as impacts upon civilian populations led to the term ‘conflict archaeology’ being devised to take account of the wider social and economic contexts of warfare (Sutherland and Holst, 2005) while ‘modern conflict archaeology’ came into use to describe work on 20th- and 21st-century conflicts (Saunders, 2010). The Cold War ended in the mid-1990s and has also generated a number of studies which explore decommissioned military remains (Hansen, 2016; Schofield and Cocroft, 2009), the former ‘Iron Curtain,’ (McWilliams, 2013) and the archaeology of Peace Camps and protest groups (Marshall et al., 2013). 4

Introduction

Research into modern conflict zones and states has proliferated in the last decade and there is now a burgeoning international historical archaeological literature dealing with, to name just a few topics, the confinement of prisoners of war (Myers and Moshenska, 2011; Mytum and Carr, 2012), the archaeology of the Holocaust (Sturdy Colls, 2012, 2015), the archaeology of genocides (Hinton, 2002), and archaeologies of oppression and political violence (Funari et al., 2010; González-Ruibal and Moshenska, 2015). Finally, the last 20 years has witnessed a growth in historical archaeologies which are explicitly concerned with issues of heritage, memory, class, and social justice. The origins of much of this work can be traced to a desire among American Marxist scholars to expose inequality through studies of labor history, and class struggle (see McGuire, 2008). Examples of this trope include Paul Shackel’s work at Harper’s Ferry (Moyer and Shackel, 2008; Shackel, 2001; Shackel and Palus, 2006), and Randall McGuire and Dean Saitta’s work on the Colorado coal field strike at Ludlow (Ludlow Collective, 2001; Saitta, 2007). In recent years, the idea that historical archaeology may serve as a form of political action and support activism has spread beyond the study of labor history and early industrial capitalism in the US. This has been prompted by the needs of community-based research with indigenous and descendent populations around the world (Atalay, 2012; McDavid, 2002). The rise of activist historical archaeologies may also, however, be correlated with a growing dissatisfaction with neoliberalism, the rise of populism, and new forms of identity politics which once again threaten global peace (Barnes and Chidester, 2010). In this respect, the politically engaged and activist forms of historical archaeology that have emerged in the last decade may prove to be among the most useful and vital aspects of the sub-field of historical archaeology in the years to come.

The structure of this book The idea behind the Handbook is to present overviews of important research in historical archaeology that has occurred since 2000. We have designed the volume to illustrate the full breadth and depth of today’s historical archaeology as it is currently being practiced around the world. The authors contributing to the book explore the seminal topics posed by today’s practitioners, including new methods, disciplinary histories, core theories, and specific examples of key research. In a general way, we might point out that modern historical archaeology constitutes a fully integrated field of study for the investigation of problems in the contemporary social and human sciences. As research continues to intensify and diversify historical archaeologists have been able to widen their investigations. It is fair to say that all around the world historical archaeologists are now collectively constructing critical histories of the unique metanarratives produced by official history and changing the ways in which we see ourselves and others. So to conclude, the Routledge Handbook of Historical Archaeology presents a comprehensive treatment of the sub-discipline and covers key contemporary debates, with concise geographical overviews. The book brings together several specialist authors on the subject from all over the world and is designed as a starting point for students who want to pursue particular topics in more depth as well as for non-archaeologists with an interest in the universe of historical archaeology. The editors of this volume have collaborated to select topics and authors, and, we believe that the collected chapters present the work of some of the very best researchers in the field today. 5

Charles E. Orser, Jr. et al.

Acknowledgment We would like to thank all the authors of the Handbook and also Matthew Gibbons and Katie Wakelin from Routledge for the constant support. We give special thanks to Will Pena, member of the Laboratory of Antarctic Studies in Human Sciences (Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil), for taking care of the organization of the chapters of the Handbook.

References Allen, J., 1973. The archaeology of nineteenth-century British imperialism: An Australian case study. World Archaeology, 5, 44–60. Andrén, A., 1998. Between Artifacts and Texts: Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective. New York, Springer. Atalay, S., 2012. Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. Barnes, J.A., and Chidester, R., 2010. Archaeologists as Activists: Can Archaeologists Change the World? Fayetteville, AL, University of Alabama Press. Beaudry, M.C., 2007. Findings: The Material Culture of Needlework and Sewing. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press. Beck, W. and Somerville, M., 2005. Conversations between disciplines: Historical archaeology and oral history at Yarrawarra. World Archaeology, 37(3), 468–483. Birmingham, J., 1976. The archaeological contribution to history: Some Australian nineteenth-century studies. World Archaeology, 8, 306–317. Brookes, A. (ed.), 2016. The Importance of British Material Culture to Historical Archaeologies of the Nineteenth Century. Lincoln, NE, University of Nebraska Press. Buchli, V., and Lucas, G., 2001. Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past. London, Routledge. Byrne, D., 2003. The ethos of return: Erasure and reinstatement of aboriginal visibility in the Australian historical landscape. Historical Archaeology, 37(1), 73–86. Carman, J., 2013. Archaeologies of Conflict. Debates in Archaeology. London, Routledge. Casella, E.C., 2000. ‘Doing trade’: A sexual economy of nineteenth-century Australian female convict prisons. World Archaeology, 32(2), 209–221. Casella, E.C., and Symonds, J. (eds.), 2005. Industrial Archaeology: Future Directions. New York, Springer. Coutts, P., 1972. The Emergence of the Foveaux Straits Maori from Prehistory. Ph.D. dissertation, Dunedin, University of Otago. Croucher, S.K. and Weiss, L. (eds.), 2011. The Archaeology of Capitalism in Colonial Contexts: Postcolonial Historical Archaeologies. New York, Springer. Deetz, J., 1977. In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Everyday Life in Early America. New York, Anchor Books. Ferguson, L., 1992. Uncommon Ground. Washington, DC, Smithsonian Institution Press. Ferris, N., Harrison, R., and Wilcox, M. (eds.), 2014. Rethinking Colonial Pasts through Archaeology. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Fox, R.A. and Scott, D.D., 1991. The post-civil war battlefield pattern: An example from the Custer battlefield. Historical Archaeology, 25(2), 92–103. Funari, P.P., 1994. South American historical archaeology. Historical Archaeology in Latin America, 3, 1–14. Funari, P.P., 1996. Historical archaeology in Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. World Archaeological Bulletin, 7, 51–62. Funari, P.P., 2002. A Arqueologia Histórica em uma Perspectiva Mundial (Historical Archaeology in a World Perspective). In A. Zarankin and M.X. Senatore (eds.) Arqueologia da Sociedade Moderna na América do Sul: Cultura Material, Discursos e Práticas (Archaeology of Modern Society in South America: Material Culture, Discourses, and Practices). Buenos Aires: Del Tridente, 107–115. Funari, P.P., Zarankin, A., and Salerno, M. (eds.), 2010. Memories from Darkness: Archaeology of Oppression and Resistance in Latin America. New York, Springer. Gilchrist, R., 2005. Introduction: Scales and voices in world historical archaeology. World Archaeology, 37 (3), 329–336. Gilchrist, R., 2012. Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past. London, Routledge.

6

Introduction

Glassie, H., 1975. Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A Structural Study of Historic Artifacts. Knoxville, TN, University of Tennessee Press. González-Ruibal, A., and Moshenska, G., 2015. Ethics and the Archaeology of Violence. New York, Springer. Gosden, C., 2001. Postcolonial Archaeology: Issues of Culture, Identity, and Knowledge. In Ian Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today. London: Polity Press, 241–261. Graves-Brown, P., Harrison, R., and Piccini, A., 2013. The Oxford Handbook of the Contemporary World. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Green, J., 1989. The Loss of the Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie Retourschip Batavia, Western Australia 1629: An Excavation Report and Catalogue of Artefacts. Oxford, British Archaeology Reports International Series 489. Hall, M., 2000. Archaeology and the Modern World: Colonial Transcripts in South Africa and the Chesapeake. London, Routledge. Hall, M., and Silliman, S.W., 2006. Historical Archaeology. Oxford, Blackwell. Hansen, T.A., 2016. The Archaeology of the Cold War. American Experience in Archaeological Perspective. Gainesville, FL, University of Florida Press. Harrison, R., and Schofield, J., 2010. After Modernity: Archaeological Approaches to the Contemporary Past. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hicks, D., and Beaudry, M.C. (eds.), 2006. The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hinton, A.L. (ed.), 2002. Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide. Oakland, CA, University of California Press. Holtorf, C., and Piccini, A. (eds.), 2009. Contemporary Archaeologies: Excavating Now. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang. Jack, R.I., 1985. The Archaeology of Colonial Australia. In S.L. Dyson (ed) Comparative Studies in the Archaeology of Colonialism. Oxford: British Archaeology Reports S233, 153–176. Johnson, M., 2006. The Tide Reversed: Prospects and Potentials for a Postcolonial Archaeology of Europe. In M. Hall, and S.W. Silliman (eds.) Historical Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell, 313–331. Lawrence, S. (ed.), 2003. Archaeologies of the British: Explorations of Identity in Great Britain and Its Colonies 1600–1945. London, Routledge. Lawrence, S., 2013. The Global Contribution of Historical Archaeology in New Zealand. In M. Campbell, S. Holdaway and S. Macready (eds.) Finding Our Recent Past: Historical Archaeology in New Zealand. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association, 213–224. Leone, M.P., 1988. The Georgian Order as the Order of Merchant Capitalism in Annapolis, Maryland. In Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr. (eds.) The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press, 235–261. Leone, M.P., 1995. A historical archaeology of capitalism. American Anthropologist, 97(2), 251–268. Leone, M.P., 2005. The Archaeology of Liberty in an American Capital: Excavations in Annapolis. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. Leone, M.P., 2009. Making Historical Archaeology Postcolonial. In Teresita Majewski and David R. M. Gaimster (eds.) International Handbook of Historical Archaeology. New York: Springer, 159–168. Leone, M.P., 2010. Critical Historical Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA, Left Coast Press. Loren, D.D., and Beaudry, M.C., 2006. Becoming American: Small Things Remembered. In M. Hall, and S.W. Silliman (eds.) Historical Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell, 251–271. Lydon, J., and Rizvi, U.Z. (eds.), 2016. Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology. London, Routledge. Ludlow Collective, 2001. Archaeology of the Colorado Coal Field War, 1913–1914. In V. Buchli, and G. Lucas (eds.) Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past. London: Routledge, 94–107. Majewski, T. and Gaimster, D. (eds.), 2009. International Handbook of Historical Archaeology. New York, Springer. Marshall, Y., Roseneil, S., and Armstrong, K., 2013. Situating the Greenham archaeology: An autoethnography of a feminist project. Public Archaeology, 8(2/3), 225–245. Mayne, A., and Murray, T., (eds.), 2001. The Archaeology of Urban Landscapes: Explorations in Slumland. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. McAtackney, L., and Ryzewski, K., 2017. Contemporary Archaeology and the City: Creativity, Ruination, and Political Action. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

7

Charles E. Orser, Jr. et al.

McDavid, C., 2002. Archaeologies that hurt; descendants that matter: A pragmatic approach to collaboration in the public interpretation of African-American archaeology. World Archaeology, 34(2), 303–314. McGuire, R.H., 2008. Archaeology as Political Action. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. McNiven, I.J. and Russell, L., 2005. Appropriated Pasts: Indigenous Peoples and the Colonial Culture of Archaeology. Lanham, MD, AltaMira. McWilliams, A., 2013. An Archaeology of the Iron Curtain: Material and Metaphor. Stockholm, Södertörn University. Moyer, T.S., and Shackel, P.A., 2008. The Making of Harper’s Ferry National Historical Park: A Devil, Two Rivers, and a Dream. Lanham, MD, AltaMira. Mrozowski, S., 2006. The Archaeology of Class in Urban America. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Myers, A. and Moshenska, G. (eds.), 2011. Archaeologies of Internment. New York, Springer. Mytum, H. and Carr, G. (eds.), 2012. Prisoners of War: Archaeology, Memory, and Heritage of 19th- and 20th-Century Mass Internment. New York, Springer. Ogundiran, A., and Falola, T. (eds.), 2007. Archaeology of Atlantic Africa and the African Diaspora. Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press. Orser, C. E., Jr. 1996. A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. New York, Plenum. Orser, C. E., Jr. (ed.), 2002. Encyclopaedia of Historical Archaeology. London, Routledge. Orser, C. E., Jr., 2010. Twenty-first century historical archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 18, 111–150. Paynter, R., 2000a. Historical and anthropological archaeology: Forging alliances. Journal of Archaeological Research, 8, 1–37. Paynter, R., 2000b. Historical archaeology and the post-Columbian world of North America. Journal of Archaeological Research, 8, 169–217. Prickett, N., 1981. The Archaeology of a Military Frontier: Taranaki, New Zealand, 1860–1881, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Auckland, Auckland. Reid, A.M., and Lane, P.J., (eds.), 2004. African Historical Archaeologies. New York, Kluwer Academic, Plenum. Ritchie, N., 1986. Archaeology and History of the Chinese in Southern New Zealand During the Nineteenth Century. Ph.D. dissertation, Dunedin: University of Otago. Saitta, D.J., 2007. The Archaeology of Collective Action. Gainesville, TN, University Press of Florida. Saunders, N.J., 2004. Matters of Conflict: Material Culture, Memory and the First World War. London, Routledge. Saunders, N.J., 2010. Killing Time: Archaeology and the First World War. Cheltenham, GL, History Press. Saunders, N.J. (ed.), 2012. Beyond the Dead Horizon: Studies in Modern Conflict Archaeology. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Schofield, J., and Cocroft, W., 2009. A Fearsome Heritage: Diverse Legacies of the Cold War. One World Archaeology. London, Routledge. Schuyler, R.L., 1970. Historical and historic sites archaeology as anthropology: Basic definitions and relationships. Historical Archaeology, 4(1), 83–89. Scott, D.D., and McFeaters, A.P., 2011. The archaeology of historic battlefields: A history and theoretical development in conflict archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 19(1), 103–132. Shackel, P.A., 2001. Archaeology and Created Memory: Public History in a National Park. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Shackel, P.A., and Palus, M., 2006. Remembering an industrial landscape. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 10, 49–71. Smith, C. and Wobst, H.M. (eds.), 2004. Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonising Theory and Practice. London, Routledge. Sturdy Colls, C., 2012. Holocaust archaeology: Archaeological approaches to landscapes of Nazi genocide and persecution. Journal of Conflict Archaeology, 7(2), 70–104. Sturdy Colls, C., 2015. Holocaust Archaeologies: Approaches and Future Directions. New York, Springer. Sutherland, T. and Holst, M., 2005. Battlefield archaeology: A guide to the archaeology of conflict.(web resource www.archaeologyskills.co.uk/downloads-and-videos/ accessed 22-11-2018, 14.27pm). Sutherland, T.L., 2010. Killing time: Challenging the common perceptions of three medieval conflicts – Ferrybridge, Dintingdale and Towton – ‘The largest battle on British soil’. Journal of Conflict Archaeology, 5(1), 1–25.

8

Introduction

Symonds, J., 2004. Historical archaeology and the recent urban past. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(1), 33–48. Symonds, J., and Casella, E.C., 2006. Historical Archaeology and Industrialization. In Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 143–167. Voss, B.L., and Casella, E.C. (eds.), 2011. The Archaeology of Colonialism: Intimate Encounters and Sexual Effects. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Voss, B.L., 2000. Feminisms, queer theories, and the archaeological study of past sexualities. World Archaeology, 32(2), 180–192. White, C.L. (eds.), 2009. The Materiality of Individuality: Archaeological Studies of Individual Lives. New York, Springer. White, C.L. and Beaudry, M.C., 2009. Artefacts and Personal Identity. In Teresita Majewski and David R.M. Gaimster (eds.) International Handbook of Historical Archaeology. New York: Springer, 209–225. Wilkie, L.A., and Hayes, K.H., 2006. Engendered and feminist archaeologies of the recent and documented pasts. Journal of Archaeological Research, 14(3), 243–264. Yamin, R., 2001. Becoming New York: The five points neighbourhood. Historical Archaeology, 35(3), 1–5. Zarankin, A., and Salerno, M.A., 2008. ‘Looking South’: Historical archaeology in South America. Historical Archaeology, 42(4), 38–58.

9

PART 1

Historical development

2

A BRIEF HISTORY OF HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY IN THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTY-FIRSTCENTURY Adam Fracchia

Over the last two decades, historical archaeology has continued to grow and mature across the globe. Calls for archaeology to be a science of the modern world have pulled together international scholarship and have further opened up the broader processes of 1nodernity to detailed study and comparison. The widening and diverse field of historical archaeology still continues to struggle over issues of scale, representation, co1nplexity, and relevance. Although international debate over these considerations has not been ameliorated, these concerns are a sign of the growing 1naturity of the discipline. Development in historical archaeology has been differential and dependent on larger ideas of value and representation. In the US, the growth of the field has slowed and faces challenges to both its practice and its position. In other countries, historical archaeology has expanded, especially in the management of cultural resources and heritage and the consideration of periods that have been historically seen as controversial or were excluded from history. In addition to the influence of social, political, and economic cli1nates in which historical archaeology is grounded, the lack of accord over the different definitions and domains of historical archaeology still hinders collaboration and considerations of what past and present is valid for study by historical archaeology. More inclusive representation and cultural, temporal, geographical, and linguistical boundaries have yet to be fully bridged. An increased attention to current issues and complexity and the adoption of technology have helped to address some of these divides. The expansion of focus on current problems, such as socio-econo1nic inequality and poverty, as well as critical exa1ninations of complex social categories such as identity have widened the scope and relevance of the field over the last seventeen years. Additionally, the growth of subfields like contemporary and co1nmunity archaeology have worked towards inclusion, equity, social justice, and multidisciplinary cooperation. Historical archaeologists have also employed advance1nents in technology and connectivity to share, analyze, and present data across the globe. A brief history of historical archaeology over the last two decades is a daunting task. Far from being a disclaimer, the many positive and negative reasons for why this is an arduous endeavor reflect on the evolution of the discipline, as a growing, sophisticated, and diverse 13

Adam Fracchia

global science. The goal of this chapter is to present the state of the field and some of the advances that have occurred since the year 2000 and place the1n in a broader context. The beginning of the millennium does not just mark a significant calendar date, many retrospectives and summaries of the state of historical archaeology or particular subfields were written around that year and provide benchmarks to assess the time since their writing. The recent works published are not a break fro1n previous scholarship, but the continuation of previous work or build on earlier scholarship. Charting the changes or new research that has occurred since the beginning of the new millennium describes the trajectory of the discipline through this new century. The li1nitations of a large and diverse field include the inability to characterize the full breadth of scholarship and access every aspect of the many subfields and concerns. Many of these subfields and focuses are outlined in greater detail along with geographical su1nmaries in the following chapters of this handbook. While also restrictive, this chapter presents a history of historical archaeology of the modern world as conceptualized by Charles Orser (1996, 2014) as it is not possible to sum1narize the deep time line and multitude of focuses of a document-based methodological definition of historical archaeology here. Further, this chapter is confined to terrestrial historical archaeology. Finally, one of the biggest restrictions of this study is its focus on literature and scholarship largely published in English.

Faster, higher, stronger Even with these disclaimers, the Olympic motto seems apt when thinking of the discipline as being global in breadth with an institutionality and relevance justified by its depth and locked in a trajectory of growth and progress. Historical archaeology has indeed grown exponentially since the beginning of the twenty-first century and the sheer volu1ne and specialization of the published material is equally large and exhausting and to so1ne extent umnanageable (Orser 2010). The field has expanded in graduate-level courses and programs, professional jobs outside academia, and the exa1nination of historic sites in cultural resource management (CRM) (Orser 2010: 111). While these assessments are generally true, much of this growth varies by region and perspective. For instance, in the last fifteen years, the United Kingdom and Ireland have seen a 1nassive increase in the archaeological study of the later post-medieval period (Homing 2016: 111-112), but more recently the growth of historical archaeology in the US has slowed or leveled off. Elsewhere in South America, historical archaeology has grown exponentially since the 1990s as seen in the number of investigation projects and specific college courses as well as the spread of national and international meetings and publications by South American archaeologists (Zarankin and Salerno 2008a, 20086). As the discipline expands, historical archaeology struggles to find and communicate relevance. In the United States, the lack of perceived utility of the field and other pressures have meant drops in the nu1nber of degrees conferred, cuts in funding, and the limiting of supporting legislation. The pattern of growth in the field of historical archaeology in the US can be seen in a survey of academic degrees earned. Historical archaeology, or more generally archaeology, 1nirrors the larger trends in the field of social sciences overall. As a whole, the growth in the degrees conferred in the social sciences and history in the US has slowed in recent years. Like the social sciences and history, archaeology has seen a similar steady expansion of the discipline until the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century when degrees earned have generally decreased, likely as an impact of the great recession. 1 This drop is anticipated to impact the size of the field in the United States. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2018a), anthropologists and archaeologists are 14

A brief history of historical archaeology

expected to see job growth of 4% from 2016 to 2026 which is slower than the average for all occupations due to a projected decline in research and development in the social sciences and humanities. This contraction is anticipated to limit the e1nployment growth in these fields. In contrast, over the sa1ne time span, construction manager jobs are supposed to increase 11% (BLS 2018b). Drawing from Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce Report and data fro1n the American Co1nmunity Survey, Forbes 1nagazine even lists anthropology and archaeology as the worst undergraduate 1najors because the 1nedian salary is only $28,000 and the unemployment rate is 10% for recent graduates aged 22 to 26 years (Goudreau 2012). More recent govern1nent statistics docu1nent that the 1nedian pay for anthropologists and archaeologists in 2017 was $62,280 per year (BLS 2018a). These numbers show the fragility of the seemingly institutional position of archaeology in the US. The overall pattern of progress in the discipline in the United States also illustrates how dependent the field is on larger political and social priorities and values. More recently and directly, historical archaeology in the United States has been increasingly called upon to define the discipline and justify its usefulness and relevance to the present in an ever 1nore hostile political climate. Politicians, such as Florida governor Rick Scott in 2011, have called into question the value of anthropology in general, arguing that students should seek degrees with which they can get a job and focus all their attention on science, technology, engineering, or math degrees (Weinstein 2011). Not only has the utility and nature of the discipline of archaeology been called into question, but with this denigration, crucial legislation and positions on the ground have been critiqued or attacked. Across the US, there have been funding cuts for archaeology programs as well as museums, historic sites, and state and federal archaeological positions and attempts to weaken historic preservation and burial laws (Stewart 2017). The sciences have generally been under threat with proposed cuts to the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Science Foundation. Recently, the US Government has also distanced itself or 1noved to leave international agreements or agencies associated with cultural heritage at the international level including withdrawing from 1nembership in the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (Harris and Erlanger 2017). In contrast, historical archaeology's expansion has been seen internationally and through collaboration. Over the last seventeen years, historical archaeology has endeavored to consider its reach and interconnectivity. In 1996, Charles Orser called for historical archaeologists to 'dig locally, but think globally.' Historical archaeology in the Caribbean is an example of collaboration as scholarship increasingly involves a mix of West Indian and nonW est-Indian nationals and a range of stakeholders and a focus on new evaluations of urban and rural settlements, advance1nents in archaeological methods, and progress in cultural resource 1nanage1nent policies (Blouet 2014: 1156, 1159). Since the end of the Cold War, cooperation has grown within various countries of Latin A1nerican as well as with American archaeologists, and 1nore recently through comparative approaches (Funari and Ferreira 2016: 104). The international breadth of the field is evident in the fact that historical archaeology is practiced on every continent in ever-increasing numbers and avenues as the regional focuses in this handbook document. The sustainment and success of journals such as the International Journal of Historical Archaeology and the Contributions to Global Historical Archaeology volu1ne series as well as supporting journals like Community Archaeology and Heritage and the InternationalJournal efHeritage Studies further attest to the development of historical archaeology across the globe and the considerations of connections and larger relationships. Historical 15

Adam Fracchia

archaeology encompasses work across the globe from the Portuguese settlement of Goa, India (Wilson 2015), the Ottoman Period in the Middle East (Baram and Carroll 2000a; Brooks and Young 2016), a gold mining village in Brazil (Costa 2014) to the island of Cuba (Myers 2010; Roksandic 2016). Other authors have drawn from studies from across the globe for comparative purposes, such as Martin Hall (2000), who exa1nined the interconnection between the colonial and post-colonial Chesapeake and South Africa.

Definitions The definition of what constitutes historical archaeology remains a division that limits the co1npatibility and application of 'global' research. The field of historical archaeology is still defined by two main focuses. In the first focus, the use of both documents and material culture defines the historical archaeology of populations with written records. Since the beginning of the field, archaeologists (Little 1992; Moreland 2001) have advocated for such a definition based on the use of documents, and the availability of such texts extends the discipline's reach fro1n the present back several thousand years (see Andren 1996). In countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia, historical archaeology is still defined using this methodology and subfields are further delineated by research focus or unique time periods, such as Classical archaeology or the archaeology of the Song Dynasty. A 1nore nuanced definition that has increasingly gained traction and 1noved away from methodological-centered definitions is a historical archaeology of the recent past. Building on earlier definitions (such as Deetz 1991), this definition exa1nines the wider world in what Orser (1996, 2014) terms an archaeology of the modern world. Specifically, modern world archaeology is defined as a kind of historical archaeology of the last five centuries that seeks to analyze and interpret the interaction and unity of the meta-processes of capitalism, colonialism, Eurocentris1n, and racialization (Orser 2014: v). These super-processes of modernity reflect a reevaluation by Orser since originally outlining his four 'haunts' with a substitution of racialization for modernity as a haunt. Explaining his reassessment, Orser (2014: vi) states that modernity is too broad a topic and the historical and cultural significance of the concept of racialization cannot be overlooked as a meta-process of postColumbian history. In laying out modern world archaeology, Orser (2014) seeks to focus historical archaeology on the material and social realities of the present and near past, and importantly, their impact of the wider world. Even though the archaeology of post-1492 is but one possible historical archaeology in an archaeology that uses all for1ns of documentary history (Funari et al. 19996: 7), archaeology of the modern world provides a unifying research target. Such a perspective has the capacity to study multiple scales or even regions as part of these haunts. For instance, the very recent field of historical archaeology of the 'Global North' has coalesced under the exa1nination of European expansion and exploitation or cultural contact and colonialism (Gullason 2004/2005; Oliver and Curtis 2015). Thus, a focus on the modern world affords the ability to pull together research on multiple scales and times in a search for relevance to the present.

Complexity and diversity Applying such a definition to historical archaeology practiced around the world exposes the co1nplicated nature of such an endeavor. This complexity steins from diversity at the local level and considerations of specific timescales. The social, political, and economic 16

A brief history of historical archaeology

environment adds to this intricacy with varying degrees of influence on setting the para1neters and the definitions of archaeology in general. The result has been the necessity to search out com1nonality across space and time and push for significance. To address these challenges, historical archaeologists have increasingly specialized as seen in the proliferation of subfields, such as conte1nporary archaeology, and have focused on salient current topics such as conflict and social inequality. The implication of what defines the modern world, or even the events of the 1nodern world contextualized within the current geo-political and social environment, still serves to set the para1neters of what is considered historical archaeology or even archaeology. The very definition of timescale exposes different approaches and their recognized boundaries. Foremost, questions arise as to the beginning of the modern world. Old and New World historical archaeologists still tend to disagree on setting the parameters of the discipline (Gilchrist 2005: 330). In the Old World, continuity from the medieval period to the 1nodern period makes 1492 a less pro1ninent date or break from the European perspective (Horning 2016: 112). On the other end of the time line in some countries, the more recent past is often not considered or receives limited attention due to an inability or an avoidance to address a colonial or a sensitive past. For instance, little sustained archaeological interest had been afforded the recent past of the Middle East, North Africa, and the Balkans because of 'ideological blinders' as to what constitutes the archaeological past (Baram and Carroll 2000b: 3). Since the 1980s, scholars have atte1npted to challenge these barriers as well as fill in this gap and upend the notion of a 1nonolithic and static Ottoman e1npire (Baram and Carroll 2000b: 4). The Ottoman period has become the focus of an increasing amount of studies that are exploring the roots of the 1nodern Middle East (Gereyles and Kovacs 2003; Zarinebaf et al. 2005). These studies themselves may be reflective of wider dissatisfaction with the present status qua which fo1nented into unrest that challenged current political and socio-economic narratives in the 201 0s amongst the general population in North Africa and the Middle East. Understanding the modern world in places such as the Middle East is further complicated by current global orientations and structures. As Alasdair Brooks and Ruth Young (2016: 22) note, a region like the Middle East can be defined in various ways, but the very na1ne implies a Eurocentric geographic position. This lack of attention to and engagement with historical archaeology of the modern period is not restricted to the Middle East. In Southeast Asia, a similar gap exists with little terrestrial archaeological work conducted on the fourteenth to eighteenth centuries (Stark 2014: 6846). Untangling issues of timescale that are connected to the haunts and their impacts is part of the maturation of the field and is being worked through in various local contexts this century. Difficulty addressing recent history can be seen in other countries such as China and until recently Ireland (McAtackney 2015; Orser and Donnelly 2008). In Ireland, any attempt to identify a precise date for the beginning of the 1nodern world in Ireland 1nust take into account sensitivity towards 'political, religious, cultural, and econo1nic ele1nents of the island's history as a result of increasing levels of English governmental and cultural intervention' (Orser and Donnelly 2008). Similarly, in East Asia, the events of the last century including the impacts of processes, such as colonization and nationalism, continue to shape the practice of the discipline and its research goals and interpretation (Bennett 2008). In other countries, historical archaeology tends to have a low profile such as in Israel where the nation's past has been consciously defined by antiquity to suit nationalistic and ideological needs (Brooks and Young 2016: 25).

17

Adam Fracchia

Another aspect of the complexity of the modern world project is seen in the challenge to integrate and compare these diverse local scales. While attention to the local scale has proliferated in post1nodern, pluralistic interpretations of the past that privilege individualism and agency, Roberta Gilchrist (2005: 332-333) notes that the global project for historical archaeology has not been universally accepted and some archaeologists (Funari et al. 1999a; Johnson 1999) believe such perceptions could mask the diversity of experience and flatten out interpretations. Describing archaeology at the end of the twentieth century, Pedro Funari et al. (1999b: 16-17) and Pedro Funari and Aline Carvalho (2014: 3053) write that there has been a move away fro1n universalizing categories with the result being a frag1nentation which allows a contextual and a pluralist approach and a diversity of interpretations. Similarly, the global possibilities of historical archaeology and its general applicability beyond regions encounter a host of other impediments. Language differences as well as political variances and boundaries limit crosspollination and understanding. For instance, historical archaeology in South America remains fragmented based on language differences such as between Spanish and Portuguese as well as the isolation i1nposed by borders at different geographic levels (Martin et al. 2012: 1). Even where influence and engage1nent exists, historical archaeology has rarely developed identically on different continents (Martin et al. 2012: 3). While li1niting, this isolation has led to considerable diversity and originality in 1nethodological approaches and analytical and interpretative frameworks. This heterogenous develop1nent has recently included projects ranging from investigations studying European settle1nent strategies to the analysis of modern garbage (Zarankin and Salerno 2008a: 41). Other studies have demonstrated the ability to study and compare local scales within larger, 1nore universal fra1neworks and questions. The recent developments of historical archaeology in Africa show attention to the the1nes of 1nodern world archaeology fro1n a local context. Despite the long history of archaeology in Africa, Andrew Reid and Paul Lane's (2004a) edited volume reflects the first volume to examine the breadth of the archaeology of historical contexts. Reid and Lane (2004b: 3) argue that a historical archaeology of Africa cannot be a transposition of American historical archaeology but rather a discipline that considers the needs and characteristics of the continent. At the same time, historical archaeologists have been able to examine 1nany of the co1nmon topics in the discipline such as the interaction of trade and contact in Africa (DeCorse 2001; Kinahan 2000; Stahl 2001), conflict (Rushohora 2015), and how historical archaeology is practiced (Schmidt 2006).

Relevance The relevance of questions that matter universally has shaped recent historical archaeology and pushed archaeology to collaborate and become more global in scope. In turn, recognition of divisions and diversity and their history and impact have been viewed as rich research sources and bridges. As Michael Johnson (1999) notes, a wide diversity of approaches can bring new insights to established problems. As the geographic scope of global historical archaeology expands, exploring the dimensions of regionality and conco1nitantly wider relationships provides avenues to understand local i1npacts and global processes. For example, for South America, the continent's long and complex history of conflict, dictatorship, oppressive regimes, multifaceted racial inequality, and econo1nic indebtedness and the subsequent quest for freedom and econo1nic progress have shaped the field's focus on themes of domination and conflict (Martin et al. 2012: 3). By navigating a co1nplex and changing world, a global archaeology of the 1nodern world is evolving and moving forward. Historical archaeology in South America is an example of 18

A brief history of historical archaeology

both the growth of the field and the overcoming of these barriers. In South America, historical archaeology has matured considerably since the 1980s as seen in the growing number of both local and nonlocal research teams, the diversity of research topics studied by South American scholars, the quantity and quality of this research, as well as the growth of local journals and publications dedicated entirely or in part to historical archaeology (Martin et al. 2012: 1). Historical archaeology is now considered a well-established field in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Uruguay, and Colo1nbia and is emerging as a recognized field in other South A1nerican countries (Van Buren 2014: 3375). Ross Jamieson (2005: 352) notes that archaeologists in the Andean countries of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina, and the foreign researchers who also work in the region, are overcoining geographic, financial, and linguistic obstacles to create a unified Andean historical archaeology. Sharing and discussing common themes allows for such crosspollination, and according to Paul Mullins (2012) the discussion of the rich range of historical archaeologies is perhaps more important than agreeing to a strict universal definition of the discipline as such a discussion can bridge global divisions and difference. Additionally, historical archaeology in the twenty-first century has benefited and employed a range of new technology to dissolve traditional boundaries. In the last two decades, new tools have emerged including laser scanners, rapid prototyping, high dyna1nic range spherical and infra-red imagery, drone photography, augmented and virtual reality, and computer rendering in multiple dimensions (Quintero and Eppich 2016: 2). While expensive and requiring specific training, these technologies offer the ability to analyze, share, and present data in new and exciting applications. The use of these tools has exploded in archaeology and cultural heritage. The ability to send and share larger and larger data in various formats has afforded archaeologists and related fields greater connectivity. For exa1nple, digital recording and storage enables the provision of worldwide access. Agencies and progra1ns such as the Archaeology Data Service in the United Kingdom provide preservation and dissemination of digital data fro1n archaeological research and allow its reuse (Richards 2008). Si1nilarly, the creation of a blog, website, or other online platform is now technologically accessible for many and has increased the interactivity and visibility of archaeology. Other, more complicated technology offers a range of possibilities from the ability to digitally recreate a site to atte1npts to offer online immersion (see Dawson et al. 2011; Gonzalez-Tennant and Gonzalez-Tennant 2016). One of the 1nost significant technological developments of this century has been the digitization of space through 1napping and spatial analysis progra1ns collectively known as Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In combination with the consideration of landscape and space as more than a setting for hu1nan action, GIS has expanded areas of research, the sharing of infor1nation, and opened new avenues for engagement with the public. Combined with new computing power, GIS has allowed the integration and analysis of large or complex spatial data sets associated with LiDAR DEM imagery (Hesse 2012) and geophysics (Klagyivik 2012). While GIS was embraced by archaeology in the 1980s, serious engage1nent did not occur until the 2000s with GIS continuing to be one of the fastest growing areas of disciplinary specialization in archaeology (Connolly and Lake 2006; Gonzalez-Tennant 2016: 24). Edward Gonzalez-Tennant (2016: 25) identifies three categories of historical archaeology's use of GIS: 1) inventory and geospatial database manage1nent; 2) geospatial analysis; and 3) mapmaking and data visualization. Mapping syste1ns and programs have allowed for more effective docu1nentation, presentation, and management of cultural resources and heritage sites. For instance, in Maryland, the Maryland State Preservation Office, known as the 19

Adam Fracchia

Maryland Historical Trust, has recently released a map-based database of archaeological and architectural sites throughout the state that allows researchers to search and obtain online spatial information and detailed descriptions of each resource and the corresponding documentation. At the same time, while GIS allows for universal applications and data sharing, GIS technology suffers from a generation and education gap as well as a financial gap in the purchase and maintenance of the required systems and technology (Wagtendonk et al. 2009). Even with these limitations, GIS and technology offer exciting new avenues for advancing analysis and collaboration in this century. Increases in technology provide the means to gain access and disseminate information, especially the growing sea of information in new platforms that are universal and global. In the recent digital age, the ability to create digital data poses two substantial problems that archaeologists will be grappling with throughout this century. The first proble1n is the lack of parity between the material and digital. The digital is not a copy of the material object and cannot represent it fully. The race to move technology forward sometimes leaves aside the critical assessment of the digital product and the recognition of technical and theoretical limitations (Verhagen 2012). With the development and application of technology, there has been an increasing call in archaeology and the hu1nanities and other heritage fields for intellectual transparency in the process of creating digital media and the use of technology (Bentkowska-Kafel and Denard 2012). Additionally, the preservation of digital 1nedia is far different than the conservation and preservation of material. Beyond the considerations of the creation of digital media is its life cycle both in storage, access, and obsolescence of technology. Whether a 3-D i1nage, a drone scan, or even a simple digital image, the digital product is far more ephemeral and fleeting in its permanence whether by preservation of data or obsolescence of technology. The other problem lies in the democratization or lack of democratization in the control and flow of infor1nation. While concern over the control of information is not new, in the digital age, the scale is broader and the technology more crucial in this century. The entrepreneurial model in the US and other capitalist states and the role of the state in less democratic governments means that technology and data is increasingly controlled and often at the will and choice of corporate owners or governmental leaders. The 2015 sale of a majority interest in the National Geographic brand to 21st Century Fox, which is poised to be bought by The Walt Disney Co1npany, illustrates this dilem1na. The National Geographic brand is a large provider of content labeled 'scientific' with its channel itself available in 143 different countries. While the ability to reach many audiences in many countries is attractive for the archaeologist, with these media platforms there is an inability to control the narrative or data. Beyond the danger of presenting and encouraging unethical activities, there is the real risk of the narrative being changed (Gonzalez-Ruibal 2016: 148) or the past being silenced by neglect. Historical archaeologists have increasingly approached the co1nplexity and diversity of the 1nodern world with a detailed examination of specific do1nains of the modern world which has led to a degree of specialization. This disciplinary segmentation can be seen in the increasing complexity and depth of the field over the last seventeen years. The specialization of the field has led to a wide breadth of information and increasing focus on research or geographic niches (Orser 2010: 12). In some cases, such disparate work has compartmentalized the field and its application even at basic levels. For instance, David Landon (2009: 79) notes that despite historical zooarchaeology's maturation, zooarchaeological data is often not fully integrated into archaeological reports and used as a central part of the archaeological

20

A brief history of historical archaeology

interpretation. In several cases, the intensive focus and specialization has led archaeologists to 1nultidisciplinary and interdisciplinary engagement on topics, such as heritage (Ar1nstrongFu1nero 2017) and landscape (Kluiving and Guttmann-Bond 2012). In recent years, many of these different research domains of historical archaeology have established themselves as subfields. The subfields offer avenues for detailed analysis as well as global comparison on the multitude of facets of the 1nodern world and provide the ability to cross the arbitrary episte1nological divide while still focusing on the themes that Orser (2008, Orser 2014) proposes. Under the umbrella of modern world archaeology or a concern for the shaping of the 1nodern world and multiple scales, the subfields have the capacity to coalesce around detailing the intricacies and larger processes that have and continue to shape the world. For instance, on the African continent, oral traditions have proven to be a significant source of historical infor1nation. These traditions can be contrasted with potentially racially or colonially biased documentary and archival sources that show differing European perceptions of archaeologists have argued for and attitudes to Africans (Lane 2008). Other a multidisciplinary approach that overcomes disciplinary barriers. Shannon Dawdy (2010: 778) advocates for a collapse of the line between ethnography and archaeology and the subsets of archaeology such as classical and historical and describes such reinventions in conte1nporary materiality studies (Buchli and Lucas 2001) and ethnographic archaeology (Castaneda and Matthews 2008; Hamilakis and Anagnostopoulos 2009), especially in Great Britain and continental Europe. One subfield which has grown in the last two decades and has attempted to study the complexity of the very recent past across disciplines is contemporary archaeology. Contemporary archaeology seeks to examine the recent past which includes issues and topics that are still being debated and/ or are highly charged and push disciplinary boundaries. This relatively new focus argues for an archaeology of the present that is also situated in the present and ultimately, is concerned with the past, present, and future and dissolving the boundaries between them (Harrison 2011). Works by Paul Graves-Brown (2000) and Victor Buchli and Gavin Lucas (2001) have helped shift the ethnoarchaeological focus of earlier work to a more specific focus on contemporary life. Buchli and Lucas (2001) believe that archaeological 1nethodologies can be employed in the study of the present and highlight present themes such as production/ consu1nption, reme1nbering/ forgetting, and disappearance/ disclosure. Since these publications, the archaeology of the contemporary past has grown exponentially (Gonzalez-Ruibal 2008; Graves-Brown et al. 2013; Holtorf and Piccini 2009; McAtackney et al. 2007; Orange 2015; Schofield and Johnson 2006). In addition to England, Australia, South Africa, and increasingly the US, a focus on conte1nporary life can be found in Francophone archaeology, Latin America, Spain, and more recently in Scandinavian archaeology (Harrison 2016: 168). Additionally, according to Rodney Harrison (2016: 167), along with conte1nporary archaeology has been the e1nergence of specific related subfields such as conflict archaeology (Crossland 2011; Moshenska 2013), forensic archaeology (Powers and Sibun 2013), archaeologies of contemporary internment and confinement (McAtackney 2014; Myers and Moshenska 2011) and disaster archaeology (Gould 2007). Another development has been the for1nation of the Conte1nporary and Historical Archaeology in Theory (CHAT) group in 2003 and their annual meetings which provide a venue for the development of contemporary archaeology alongside more conventional historical archaeology (Hicks 2008). These engage1nents with the recent and 1nodern world have strived to find relevance and are shaped by dominant social narratives and issues. In the modern age, internment and 21

Adam Fracchia

confinement present evidence of continuous social injustice at the local level but on a global scale. Adrian Myers and Gabriel Moshenska's (2011) edited volu1ne documents studies of internment ca1nps from the United States to Finland to Argentina and beyond and in the process documents painful histories in the not-so-distant past. Claudia Theune's (2013, 2015) research on Ger1nan concentration camps, such as the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration ca1np in Austria, provides the material docu1nentation of life within camp under policies of abuse and extermination in settings that are not that far re1noved from the past. The salience of such research is the prevalence and persistent use of internment and repression that has 1narked this century whether in the establishment and continued operation of the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay or the proliferation of refugee and i1nmigrant detention camps throughout the Western world and as well as Asia, Africa, and South America. These works are part of a larger body of scholarship that seeks to use archaeology to serve the present. At the end of the last century, archaeologists were writing about the relationship between archaeological studies of the past and present concerns (Blakey 1997; Conkey and Spector 1984; Gero 1985; Gero and Conkey 1991; Leone and Potter 1999; Orser 1999). The discipline has continued to address the call to make historical archaeology relevant to the present and a tool for action (Little 2007; Little and Shackel 2007, 2014; McGuire 2008; Sabloff 2008; Saitta 2007; Shackel 2013; Stott1nan 2010; Wood 2002; Wurst and Mrozowski 2014). For instance, archaeologists of the Ludlow Collective investigated the Ludlow Massacre of striking coal miners and their fa1nilies by the Colorado National Guard in April 1914 and saw their role as not only documenting the material evidence of the tent colony and its destruction, but also working to energize the memory of working class struggle. Other researchers have sought to study and contribute to tackling prominent social problems whether studying the homeless (Kiddey and Schofield 2011; Zim1nerman and Welch 2011) or border migration (De Leon 2012, 2013). Forensic archaeology of human rights violations and atrocities (Stover and Ryan 2001) and war dead from the recent past (such as by the Defense POW /MIA Accounting Agency) includes continued but specialized engage1nents with the conte1nporary past all over the world. Seeking to address inequality in the modern world, the study of the theme of capitalism continues to pull global historical archaeologies together and distance this 1node of historical archaeology from the archaeology of earlier periods. Historical archaeology has expanded dramatically over the last two decades, and the literature on the historical archaeology of capitalism today is substantial (Orser 2010). Much of this work has been carried out in the US and the UK, or by researchers from these countries who work in the so-called developing world (Andrews et al. 2006). Historical archaeology has been defined explicitly by some archaeologists as the study of the spread of modern capitalis1n (Leone 1995; Leone and Potter 1999; Orser 1996). The global research extent of such a purview can be seen in the recently updated, second edition of HistoricalArchaeologiesof Capitalism (Leone and Knauf 2015a) which incorporates the historical archaeology of four continents together under the unifying theme of a Marxist focus and the impact of capitalism's process. Such works reflect the post-1990 concern within the field that the study of capitalism must be 1nultiscalar (Paynter 2000). The material signature of capitalism has even been a recent focus of archaeology at the bottom of the world, such as the examination of seal camps in Antarctica (Zarankin and Senatore 2005). Archaeologists (Leone 2010; McGuire 2006, 2008) continue to push for the historical archaeology of capitalism to be engaged with and 1nade relevant to the present, especially by critiquing the inequalities created in the present. Awareness of social inequality, especially prevalent in the so-called developed world, has shaped recent research in historical 22

A brief history of historical archaeology

archaeology. Since the turn of the twenty-first century, archaeologists have also paid closer attention to the processes and relationships that surround class relationships and laborers (Leone and Knauf 2015b: 9). The stark effect of the global economic recession in 2008 due to the collapse of the financial syste1n increased this awareness and focused attention back on worldwide socio-economic systems and processes within the public consciousness (Eagleton 2011: xi; Wurst and Mrozowski 2016: 81). In this climate, archaeologists living in what Thomas Picketty (2014) has called the second Gilded Age have looked back at the first Gilded Age for context and comparison (Orser 2012; Paynter 2012). Archaeologists have examined the relationship between industry and capitalis1n and the manifestation of conflict in the coal regions of Pennsylvania (Roller 2013; Shackel and Roller 2012), West Virginia (Nida 2013), and Colorado (McGuire 2008; Saitta 2007), or industry in Maryland (Fracchia and Brighton 2015) and West Virginia (Shackel and Palus 2006). Archaeologists have examined racial and ethnic tensions during the Gilded Age with Chinese im1nigrants and workers (Merritt et al. 2012; Willia1ns and Voss 2008), urban poverty and racialization (Orser 201 lb), and African-A1nericans in Philadelphia (Barton 2012). These studies all examine the points whereby 1nany of the structural pieces of the modern world were visible (Paynter 2012: 781) and offer an opportunity to better understand current inequity. Broader patterns of social inequality have been the increased purview of the discipline. Since the beginning of the discipline, historical archaeologists have focused on social inequality and cultural contact (Orser 2014: 14). By the end of the twentieth century, archaeologists increasingly focused on i1nperialis1n and postcolonialism in their studies of cultural contact (Orser 2014: 15). Global networks of the 1nore recent past have become explicitly studied in colonial history outside of the formerly colonized world. While Britain has been generally disinterested in the archaeology of colonialism (Courtney 2009), colonialism has been a focus of work in places like Ireland (Homing 2013). Elsewhere in Europe, Audrey Horning (2016: 115) documents a large increase in the study of the colonial history of Scandinavia (Ekengren 2013; Fur 2006; Lind1nark 2013; Naum and Nordin 2013; Nordin 2013) as well as Spain and Portugal (Cruz 2007; Funari and Senatore 2015; Goines and Casimiro 2013; Pikirayi 2009; Schavelzon 2000). Marginality and poverty have been another subfield of historical archaeology that has demonstrated the ability to span boundaries and explain wider processes. Alan Mayne and Tim Murray (2001) devote an edited volume to showing the daily life of people in marginalized neighborhoods and landscapes across the globe and the strategies for navigating these landscapes, often termed 'slums.' Large-scale projects, like the Hungate in York, the Five Points in Manhattan, Little Lon in Sydney, and Oakland have provided a basis for interpretations of poverty on multiple scales (Orser 201 la: 534). Understanding such local contexts relationally or as involved in larger systems and processes has helped to show the global networks and 1nultiscalar relationships of the past. The maturation and publication of archaeology of so-called peripheral locations increasingly de1nonstrates the local context and the far-reaching interrelationships of global networks and processes. For instance, Daniel Schavelzon (2000, 2013) atte1npts to look at the historical archaeology of the city of Buenos Aires since 1985 and even subtitles his book, a City at the End efthe World. In his book Schavelzon (2000, 2013) details imported material culture at the local level and the larger relationship between Argentina and the outside world, especially the impact of Britain and British trade. Pedro Funari (2007: 183) notes that Latin A1nerica in general is in a unique position of being both a part of the W estem World and on its periphery. At the other pole, marginality, in several senses, is an important issue for contextualizing larger regional concepts such as the 'Global North' (Oliver and Curtis 2015: 5).

23

Adam Fracchia

Representation and self-reflexivity Since 2000, the discipline has witnessed increasing globalization and international crises. For the United States, the beginning of the new century was marked by the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, and since then the focus on terroris1n and conflicts over ideologies, power, and resources throughout the globe has shown the interrelationships and connections of different and see1ningly diverse groups and barriers to understanding. These barriers and conflicts underlie present issues in historical archaeology including reevaluating identity, representation, and access to resources. The lack of full representation has led to attention to and critiques of the ethnic, racial, and gender make-up of the field as well as fostered dialogues on power, abuse, and collaboration. At the forefront of these barriers are the divisions of language and resources which limit universal inclusion and representation and collaboration and comparison. Historical archaeology has been historically do1ninated by English-speaking countries which has restricted other voices. Pedro Funari and Lucio Ferreira (2016: 100) characterize the beginning of historical archaeology as a eulogy for the elites in the mid-twentieth century that then began to include different perspectives and groups in the United States, Canada, and Australia, and has moved to other English-speaking developed countries. The resulting domination of global historical archaeology by North American concerns and voices has sometimes muted and 01nitted disparate global experiences (Horning 2016: 111). Currently, poorer countries, such as Bolivia, Zimbabwe, and Vietnam, have little to no representation in English publications (Funari and Ferreira 2016: 100). This lack of full representation by other countries continues to be highly problematic. The North American and European outlooks on archaeology are still seen as hegemonic worldwide and are emulated by the rest of the world (Funari 1999: 39-42). For instance, in their discussion of South Asian historical archaeology, Wilson and Hauser (2016) argue that the hemispheric focus on the Atlantic world has hampered the development of the discipline outside of this epicenter, because the focus has been generally confined to European expansion. As global trade with Asia, Europe, and Africa extends back to the early historical period in India (circa the third century BC), the delineation of the late fifteenth-century AD for the arrival of Europeans would cause opposition from South Asian archaeologists and complicate the analysis of the four haunts (Wilson and Hauser 2016: 7-8). In Europe, historical archaeology focusing on 1500 to 1900 has been dominated by British and Scandinavian research, and little comparative work has been accomplished across the European continent (Gilchrist 2005: 330). In the last two decades, this hegemonic position has been challenged. Digitization and the internet are providing for the wider dissemination of 1naterial and data at an exponential rate which could eventually help bridge linguistic boundaries and provide for wider participation and representation. Technology, however, is resource dependent and thus has its own costs and limitations. The maturation of local perspectives has also provided for alternative traditions. For instance, Natascha Mehler (2013: 39) states that historical archaeology is undergoing a process of formation and consolidation in portions of Europe as a result of the work of enthusiastic individuals or individual scientists. Elsewhere, the adoption of postcolonial approaches has led to a reaction against the importation of traditional interpretive 1nodels (Funari and Ferreira 2016: 100). Within the field of practicing archaeologists itself, representation is being reevaluated with the push for a 1nore inclusive and global body of historical archaeologists. This internationalist perspective is needed as the profession of historical archaeology has 1nostly been

24

A brief history of historical archaeology

nationally and continentally represented (Orser 2008: 183). For example, most of the over 1,700 members of the Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA), the largest scholarly organization dedicated to the study of the 1nodern world through material culture and excavation, live and work in the United States where the society is based (Noble 2014: 6772). While 1neetings of historical archaeology's professional societies are open to everyone, they tend to be restricted regionally or nationally. For instance, the SHA mainly represents North America while the Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology (ASHA) focuses on Australia, New Zealand, and the surrounding area (Orser 2008: 183). In this 1nillennium, the SHA did meet outside of North A1nerican for the first time, holding its annual conference in York, England, in 2005. Yet this effort was again confined to the English-speaking world. Moving towards a more inclusive and collaborative body means fostering a diverse group of professional members. Once again, the main professional society for historical archaeology has been the SHA which is still dominated by North A1nerican archaeologists (Matthews 2016: 2). A voluntary survey conducted by the SHA in 2008 showed 94.4% (n=987) of 1nembers were from North A1nerica. In 2008, the primarily English-speaking countries of Australia, USA, Canada, Ireland, and the UK represented 97.8% (n=l,022) of this 1nembership. While the country categories were slightly different, a similar survey in 2014 showed the English-speaking countries of Australia, Canada, the US, the UK, and New Zealand representing 95% (672 out of 707) of the respondents. These statistics are either not a representative sample or reflect only a slight diversification of the field outside its traditional Anglophone base over recent years. Representation and diversification concerns extend to other aspects of identity. In the US, wider societal debates about concerns with gender and racial inequality as well as 1ninority and gender representation can be seen in the examination of the field itself The SHA recently formed the Gender and Minority Affairs Committee (GMAC) to atte1npt to 1natch the diversity in the me1nbership of the society with that of the population in general. Accordingly, the GMAC 'seeks diversity as a step towards social justice and an anti-racist, nonsexist, and equal organization' (SHA 2017). Thus, at the 2017 conference in Ft Worth, Texas, the SHA sponsored events such as an anti-racism workshop to consider the role of the SHA in fostering inequality. Similar to the lack of diversity in country of origin, the SHA shows a 1najority 'White' ethnic 1nembership with a slight trend towards ethnic diversification in the last few years. The 2008 SHA voluntary survey of me1nbers (n = 1,022 respondents) found the ethnic listing of respondents at 0.9% Asian, 0.8% Black (of African origin), 2.5% (Hispanic or Latino/a), 1.6% Native A1nerica or Alaskan Native, 0.1 % Pacific Islander, 3.6% Other, and 93.2% White (of European origin). A more recent survey of membership in 2014 (n=l,815 respondents) lists the ethnic makeup as .04% Asian, 1.0% Black, 3% Multiracial, 2% Hispanic or Latino/a, 4% Other, 1% Native American/ Alaska Native or other indigenous group, and 88% White. The broadening of ethnic categories in these surveys shows a consideration of diversity while the numbers suggest a slowly diversifying field. In the US, the gender gap has narrowed but is still disproportional when comparing the number of women with degrees in the field and the number of women 1nembers in professional societies. In academia, archaeology has generally showed an opposite gender gap to the social sciences and history with women outnu1nbering men in earning degrees at all levels since the 1993-1994 academic year. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2017), archaeology in the US during 2011-2012 saw the bulk of the undergraduate degrees (n=264) being earned by females (n=l 94) with a similar trend at the master's level (35 out of 46) and doctorate (6 out of 10). At the membership level, using the data

25

Adam Fracchia

provided by the SHA again, the ratio between male and female is relatively even with little change from 2008 to the present. A 2008 voluntary survey of SHA 1nembership found that the ratio of me1nbers was 50. 7% 1nale to 49 .3% fe1nale. In a 1nore recent SHA survey of its 1nembers, those who responded as women made up 51 % of respondents while men numbered 48% and those who listed 'other' included .03%. This discrepancy suggests a lack of co1nparative representation in terms of the nu1nber of women earning degrees in archaeology. Although at the beginning of the century, Charles Cleland (2000: 2) noted that the number of women practicing historical archaeology has increased including the number who have taken up leadership roles in the SHA (Wilkie 2005: 345). Currently, of the 2018 candidates listed for elected office in the SHA, 6 out of 12 are women. Increasing calls for better representation in the field and attention to representation in US society in general has led to the opening of dialogues about equality, harass1nent, and abuse. Recently in this century, more awareness has been paid to issues of equal pay and harassment although these issues continue to be largely unresolved. In general, rates of sexual harassment and violence were found to be pervasive in the sciences and often predicated on power relationships in the field. According to Kathryn Clancy et al. (2014), a survey of life, physical, and social sciences, including archaeology (representing 24% of respondents), from 30 different countries, but 1nainly the US, found that 64% of respondents in the survey had experienced sexual harass1nent and over 20% had experienced sexual assault. Among survey respondents, over 90% of the women and 70% of men were trainees or employees at the time that they were targeted (Clancy et al. 2014: 4). A different survey by the Southeast Archaeology Conference (SEAC) (Meyers et al. 2015: 24) of its me1nbers found similar results with 68% of respondents having experienced inappropriate remarks in the field while 13% of respondents experienced unwanted sexual contact. These statistics show the prevalence of such behavior and abuse in archaeology which often exploits unequal relationships of power. Historical archaeologists have also paid greater attention to their relationship to the subjects of their work and those people directly impacted by their work. A1nerican historical archaeologists have played a key role in the discipline's discourses on the role of the co1n1nunity and descendants in partnerships, public archaeology, and 1nultivocality (Wilkie 2005: 344). In this century, a wide and detailed body of literature has been focused on the role of archaeology in community engagement and activism (e.g. Baumann et al. 2008; Gadsby 2010; Little 2007; Little and Shackel 2014, 2007; McDavid 2002; McGuire and Reckner 2003; Sabloff 2008; Saitta 2007; Shackel and Cha1nbers 2004; Wood 2002). For instance, in her discussion of the Market Street Chinatown project in San Jose, California, Barbara Voss (2005) shows the benefits of collaboration, detailing the new research themes proposed by engagement with the local Chinese com1nunity including the consideration of topics that previous studies had not contemplated. This attention to issues of collaboration, engagement, power dynamics, and/ or representation extends outside the US to countries such as England (Casella and Croucher 2010), Scotland (Dalglish 2010), Bangladesh (Sen 2002), Canada (Fry 2007; Hansen and Fowler 2007), Australia (Fredericksen 2002; Harrison and Willia1nson 2002; Marshall 2002), and Brazil (Funari et al. 2007). In another example, Wendy Beck and Margaret Somerville (2005) detail the relationship and role of historical archaeology and indigenous oral history at Y arrawarra, New South Wales, Australia. Other archaeologists (Brooks 2013; Prangnell 2013) have considered and critiqued their own role and position within their research as well as their relationships to the groups they study. Collaboration and involvement with stakeholder groups has evolved in the twenty-first century. Reaching its heyday between 2008 and 2010, indigenous archaeology was concerned with integrating the concerns and concepts of indigenous peoples Gordan 2016: 70).

26

A brief history of historical archaeology

Studies from this period include works that critically examined the relationship between archaeologies and indigenous com1nunities (Bruachac et al. 2010; Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2009; Nicholas 2010; Preucel and Cipolla 2008; Silliman 2008). In 1nore recent studies, this approach has been termed 'com1nunity-based archaeology' (Atalay 2012; Lyons 2013). Part of this notion of inclusion includes a more complex consideration of the connected nature of identities in the modern world which has led historical archaeologists to explore the dynamics of these interrelations. Historical archaeologists have moved away fro1n essentialist categories in understanding identities or categorizations that have historically been seen as essentialized. In doing so, historical archaeologists have employed a range of different theories to place these complex identities in social and historical contexts. Some of this attention has been prompted by the social transformations in society and the prevalence of larger dialogues of identity spurred by do1nestic and international conflicts. Archaeologists are increasingly conceptualizing identities as a product of power relations in distinct sociohistorical settings rather than as fixed or essentialized identities (Orser 201 0; Voss and Allen 2008). For example, Stacy Kozakavich (2006) used archaeological and historical investigations to document the identity of the Doukhobor, a Christian sect of over 7,000 that migrated from Russia to western Canada and established three colonies in the districts of Saskatchewan and Assiniboia in the Northwest Territories. Kozakavich (2006) found a complex and changing identity based on internal tensions in the sect and conflicts with the Govern1nent of Canada's Department of the Interior that involved 1nultiple levels of practice and belief Gender and sexual identities and their recognition, which have become more visible topics of discussion in society in general, have been increasingly studied in the field of historical archaeology (Voss 2000). Gender has become widely entrenched in historical archaeological practice with researchers exploring the historical signature range of sexualities (Wilkie 2005: 345). Beginning two decades ago, the formation of identity beyond the categories of man and woman have challenged the biases of the traditional duality (Mont6n-Subias and Meyer 2014; Moral 2016: 788). Researchers, like Moral (2016: 806), have advocated for the use of theoretical concepts such as intersectionality to explore the social reproduction of gender as gender intersects with different axes of differentiation, such as age, race, or class. The complexity of identities in general have been explored through other theoretical perspectives such as critical race theory (Epperson 2004) and intersectionality (Leone et al. 2005). Increasingly, the aspects of race, class, gender, and ethnics have been found to be interconnected and inseparable (Leone et al. 2005: 591). To untangle these interrelations, Eleanor Casella (2016: 140) argues for approaching meshworks of connectivity where the place and mo1nent converge to understand the diversity, increasing complexity, and multiscalar dynamics of globalization and identity. The fact that historical archaeologists have been able to investigate the intersection of race, class, and gender using different paradigms illustrates the breadth of research in historical archaeology and the realization that the past can be interpreted in different ways (Orser 2010: 115). As the definitions of identity continue to evolve and be in the forefront of the public discussion, historical archaeologists will continue to consider the co1nplexity of social relationships in the past (Diaz-Andreu and Lucy 2005).

A wider field of practice In many countries, the majority of archaeological work increasingly lies outside of acade1nia. Much of this work falls under practices variously referred to as salvage or contract archaeology or cultural resource management. As cycles of destruction and construction beca1ne 1nore rapid, historical archaeology has grown to document or manage impacted resources. 27

Adam Fracchia

Larger societal and political pressures and definitions of what constitutes archaeology affect the study and preservation of archaeological deposits encountered outside of academia. Historical archaeology now dominates the practice of professional and contractual archaeology across the globe. Urban develop1nent and historic buildings conservation have yielded 1nassive archaeological data assemblages from the last few centuries (Gilchrist 2005: 330). While most of the work remains compliance related and driven by com1nercial develop1nent, heritage-based research linked to tourism has expanded recently as well (Mrozowski 2009: 19-20). Still, in the United States, as much as 90% of all archaeology is now linked to CRM progra1ns (Sebastian 2010: 6-7). Outside of the US, where historical archaeology is considered, salvage archaeology has grown. In the United Kingdom, 'commercial' archaeology is beco1ning a part of mainstrea1n historical or post-medieval archaeology (see, e.g. Palmer 2007; Symonds et al. 2006). In Mexico, the growth of historical archaeology is itself tightly tied to salvage archaeology when buildings or urban streetscapes are being modified (Charlton and Fournier 2008). In East Asia, where archaeology is generally characterized by a historiographical approach, unless the finds are spectacular in nature, recent periods are routinely stripped away because they are believed to be ubiquitous and/ or overlay earlier deposits (Bennett 2008). Even with this increase in compliance-driven historical archaeology, historical archaeologists still need to justify the relevance of their subject against the needs of development while the visibility of 1nuch of this work is still limited. At the same time, in a globalizing and more connected world, heritage has become 1nore prominent and more contested. Evolving, contested, and someti1nes essentialized identities have looked to a heritage that at its base has some 1naterialized reference. Ever-increasing global cycles of destruction and construction have also meant more attention to heritage. In this cli1nate, historical archaeologists have had to deal with issues of justification, presentation, and preservation. The contestation of heritage and its physicality has been more pro1ninently broadcast fro1n archaeological sites destroyed by ISIS to the removal of statutes of controversial historic figures in the United States. Increasingly various groups have manipulated markers or 1nanifestations of cultural heritage to assert, defend, or deny clai1ns (Silverman 2011: 1). A recent prominent exa1nple of the contested and political nature of heritage is the demolition of the 220-year-old Ottoman al-Ajyad fortress in Mecca in 2002 despite protests. According to Lynn Meskell (2002: 565), in destroying the prominent fortress, the Turks believed that the Saudis were trying to erase the memory of the Ottoman Empire, while the Saudis claimed that simply 1nore space was needed for the increasing numbers of pilgrims who visit the holy shrines. In this polarized environment, historical archaeology has increasingly explored its own role in heritage and its social responsibilities (O'Keeffe 2014: 3260) including heritage's connection to human rights (Ha1nilakis 2005; Silverman and Ruggles 2007), modernity and 1nodern values (Gonzalez-Ruibal 2008; Meskell 2002), and descendant communities (Franklin and McKee 2004; Shackel 2010). Public outreach, intangible heritage, and the intersection of human and cultural rights have also seen more consideration (Silver1nan 2011: 10). While 1nany countries and agencies have addressed heritage, little standardization still exists between countries (O'Keeffe 2014: 3260). Global consensus on heritage management has thus remained contested even as heritage concerns have been extended to the peripheries with even Antarctica seeing occasional archaeological investigations, often associated with heritage resource manage1nent (Pearson 2011). For instance, in Japan there is a wide range in what is considered cultural property (Matsuda 2014). Yet, in the United States and many other countries, no new unified regulatory fra1nework exists to encompass the wider sociocultural environ1nent (see King 2013). Laws tend to focus on discrete properties more than

28

A brief history of historical archaeology

cultural landscapes and intangible heritage. The growing attention to the cultural links between people and places and intangible elements of heritage has led to the continued push for the develop1nent of definitions of heritage that bridge the conceptual differences between the current legal and political frameworks for protecting tangible and intangible legacies (Armstrong-Fu1nero and Gutierrez 2017: 13).

Conclusion As a whole, the discipline of historical archaeology has grown across the world over the last two decades. The field re1nains limited by a divide in the definition of historical archaeology between a methodology that employs textual sources in co1nbination with material culture and excavation and an archaeology that exa1nines the modern world. Still, the prioritization of a 1nodern world archaeology that sees its purview as the formation and evolution of the 1nodern world has expanded. The utility of such an approach is in its ability to address the present and near past and examine processes that tie local experiences in co1nparative, multiscalar, and 1neaningful frameworks. Such a perspective does not diminish the more recent recognition of diversity and different reactions to the modern world that characterize the site or regional level. Historical archaeologists have increasingly had to justify or push for their position and relevance to the present at all scales in changing political, economic, and social environ1nents. In this cli1nate, heritage has been targeted and historical archaeologists have had to consider their position and the impact of their work as well as their relationship with communities. Seemingly in response, the exponential growth of contemporary archaeology has sought to exa1nine the recent past while historical archaeology in general has focused on problems of social inequality, inclusion, and representation. The complexity of identities and their situational expression are being examined with new network theories such as intersectionality. Barriers to a consistent global approach are 1nany, ranging fro1n language and politics to equal representation and inclusion, but are being challenged and bridged in the field. The coalescing of multiple strands of historical archaeology under a research focus of the 1nodern world as typified by the haunts laid out by Charles Orser provides an avenue to explore co1nplex identities and compare contexts. While new technologies and novel applications of these technologies present a host of challenges, they also offer avenues to share infor1nation and for collaboration. Spurred by large societal dialogues, a growing self-reflexivity has challenged the status qua and made initial strides to build a 1nore inclusive professional field, especially in ter1ns of ethnic, gender, and racial equity and representation. The last seventeen years have shown not only growth in the field but a reevaluation of historical archaeology's relevance and connectivity that has explored issues of scale, inclusion, and equity. These conversations are ongoing and reflect different efforts in various subfields and regions and are by no means concluded, but the dialogues that they have generated de1nonstrate that the trajectory of historical archaeology of the recent nearly two decades is posed to study the modern world and work towards a better global world in the future.

Note 1 Specific academic statistics for historical archaeology are difficult to obtain. At all academic levels, historical archaeology is often a specialization in an archaeology degree or more generally a focus in an anthropology major. Further, the modern disciplinary boundaries of anthropology, sociology, contemporary history, art history, architectural history, historic preservation, and material culture

29

Adam Fracchia

studies are unclear and overlapping, and the full breadth of historical archaeology is even more difficult to quantify. Therefore, the gross level of archaeology is considered the closest level that can be referenced to extrapolate trends. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2017), while the number of bachelor's and master's degrees in the social sciences has increased 36'¾, and 44'¾,respectively from 2000 to 2010, the number of bachelor's and master's degrees conferred has only grown by 1'¾,and 6'¾,from 2010 to 2014. Doctoral degrees conferred have risen at a steadier pace going from 6'¾, growth from 2000 to 2010 to 9'¾,from 2010 to 2014. The same statistics show a narrowing of the gap between the number of males and females earning postsecondary degrees since 1990. Archaeology degrees conferred have climbed generally over the last 22 years from 95 bachelor's degrees, 14 master's degrees, and 8 doctorates earned in 1995 to its peak in 2011-2012 with 264 bachelor's degree, 46 master's degrees, and 10 doctorates earned. Since then, the number of bachelor's degrees has been dropping, numbering only 206 in 2014-2015, and masters and doctoral degrees have decreased or fluctuated.

References cited Andren, A. 1996. Between Artifacts and Texts: Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective.New York: Plenum Press. Andrews, A. P., R. Burgos Villanueva, and L. Millet Camara, 2006. "The Historic Port of El Real de Salinas in Campeche, and the Role of Coastal Resources in the Emergence of Capitalism in Yucatan, Mexico." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology10: 179-205. Armstrong-Fumero, F., ed. 2017. LegaciesefSpaceand IntangibleHeritage:Archaeology,Ethnohistory, and the PoliticsefCultural Continuity in the Americas.Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Press. Armstrong-Fumero, F. and J. H. Gutierrez, 2017. "Introduction." In LegaciesefSpace and IntangibleHeritage: Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and the Politics of Cultural Continuity in the Americas, edited by F. Armstrong-Fumero, pp. 3-14. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Press. Atalay, S. 2012. Community-Based Archaeology:Researchwith, by, andfor Indigenousand Local Communities. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Baram, U. and L. Carroll, eds. 2000a. A HistoricalArchaeologyof the Ottoman Empire: BreakingNew Ground. New York: I{luwer Academic/Plenum. Baram, U. and L. Carroll, 2000b. "The Future of the Ottoman Past." In A HistoricalArchaeologyof the Ottoman Empire: Breaking New Ground, edited by U. Baram and L. Carroll, pp. 3-32. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Barton, C. P. 2012. "Tacking Between Black and White: Race Relations in Gilded Age Philadelphia." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology16(4): 634-650. Baumann, T., A. Hurley, and L. Allen, 2008. "Economic Stability and Social Identity: Historic Preservation in Old North St. Louis." HistoricalArchaeology42(1): 70-87. Beck, W. and M. Somerville, 2005. "Conversations between Disciplines: Historical Archaeology and Oral History at Yarrawarra." World Archaeology37(3): 468-483. Bennett, G. P. 2008. "Historical Archaeology in Asia, East." In Encyclopediaof Archaeology,edited by D. M. Pearsall, Oxford: Elsevier Science & Technology. http:/ /proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/ content/ entry/ estarch/historical_archaeology / 1? login?url =http:/ I search.credoreference.com/ institutionid= 1210 Bentkowska-I{afel, A. and H. Denard, 2012. "Introduction." In Paradataand Transparencyin Virtual Heritage, edited by A. Bentkowska-Kafel, H. Denard, and D. Baker, pp. 1-4. Farnham: Ashgate. Blakey, M. L. 1997. "Commentary: Past Is Present: Comments on 'In the Realm of Politics: Prospects for Public Participation in African-American and Plantation Archaeology'." HistoricalArchaeology33: 140-146. Blouet, H. 2014. "Caribbean Historical Archaeology." In Encyclopediaof Global Archaeology,edited by Claire Smith, pp. 1156-1160. New York: Springer. Brooks, A. 2013. "The World Is What It Is: The Role of Subjectivity and Personal Experience in Global Historical Archaeologies." HistoricalArchaeology4 7 (1): 1-9. Brooks, A. and R. Young, 2016. "Historical Archaeology and Heritage in the Middle East: A Preliminary Overview." HistoricalArchaeology50(4): 22-35.

30

A brief history of historical archaeology

Bruchac, M. M., S. M. Hart, and H. Martin Wobst, eds. 2010. IndigenousArchaeologies:A Reader on Decolonization. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Buchli, V., and G. Lucas, eds. 2001. Archaeologiesof the ContemporaryPast. New York: Routledge. Casella, E. C. 2016. "Horizons beyond the Perimeter Wall: Relational Materiality, Institutional Confinement, and the Archaeology of Being Global." HistoricalArchaeology50(3): 127-143. Casella, E. C. and S. I{. Croucher, 2010. The Alderley Sandhills Project:An Archaeologyef Community Life in (Post)-IndustrialEngland. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Castaneda, Q. E., and C. N. Matthews, eds. 2008. EthnographicArchaeologies:Reflectionson Stakeholdersand ArchaeologicalPractices.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Charlton, T. H., and P. Fournier, 2008. "Historical Archaeology in Mexico." In Encyclopediaof Archaeology, edited by D. M. Pearsall, Oxford: Elsevier Science & Technology. http:/ /proxy-um.research port. umd.edu/login?url =http:// search. credoreference. corn/ content/ entry/ estarch/historical_archaeo logy _in_mexico/0?institutionid = 1210 Clancy, K. B. H., R.G. Nelson, J. N. Rutherford, and K. Hinde, 2014. "Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault." PLoS One 9(7): e 102172, 1-9. Cleland, C. 2000. "Historical Archaeology Adrift?" HistoricalArchaeology35: 1-8. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. 2009. Inheritingthe Past: The Making efArthur C. Parkerand IndigenousArchaeology. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Conkey, M. W., and J. Spector, 1984. "Archaeology and the Study of Gender." Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 1-29. Connolly, J. and M. Lake, 2006. GeographicalInformation Systems in Archaeology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Costa, D. M. 2014. "Historical Archaeology of Lavras do Abade: An Environmental Conflict in Nineteenth-Century Brazil." InternationalJournal if HistoricalArchaeology18: 20-36. Courtney, P. 2009. "The Current State and Future Prospects of Theory in European Post-Medieval Archaeology." In International Handbook ef Historical Archaeology, edited by Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, pp. 169-189. New York: Springer. Crossland, Z. 2011. "The Archaeology of Contemporary Conflict." In The Oxford Handbook ef the Archaeologyof Ritual and Religion, edited by Timothy Insoll, pp. 285-306. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cruz, M. D. 2007. "Portugal Gigante: Nationalism, Motherland and Colonial Encounters in Portugese Textbooks." Gioldnia 5(2): 395-422. Dalglish, C. 2010. "For the Community: Scottish Historical Archaeology and the Politics of Land Reform." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology14(3): 37 4-397. Dawdy, S. L. 2010. "Clockpunk Anthropology and the Ruins of Modernity." Current Anthropology 51 (6): 761-793. Dawson, P., R. Levy, and N. Lyons, 2011. "Breaking the Fourth Wall": 3D Virtual Worlds as Tools for l{nowledge Reparation in Archaeology." Journal of SocialArchaeology11 (3): 387-402. De Leon, J. 2012. "Better to Be Hot than Caught": Excavating the Conflicting Roles of Migrant Material Culture." AmericanAnthropologist114(3): 477-495. De Leon, J. 2013. "Undocumented Migration, Use-Wear, and the Materiality of Habitual Suffering in the Sonoran Desert."Journal of Material Culture 18(4): 1-32. DeCorse, C. R. 2001. An ArchaeologyefElmina: Africans and Europeans on the Gold Coast, 1400-1900. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Deetz, J. F. 1991. "Introduction: Archaeological Evidence of Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Encounters." In HistoricalArchaeologyin Global Perspective,edited by L. Falk, pp. 1-9. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Diaz-Andreu, M. and S. Lucy, 2005. "Introduction." In The Archaeologyof Identity: Approachesto Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion, edited by M. Diaz-Andreu, Margarita Diaz-Andreu, S. Lucy, S. Babic, D. N. Edwards, pp. 1-12. London: Routledge. Eagleton, T. 2011. Why Marx Was Right. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Ekengren, F. 2013. "Materialities on the Move: Identity and Material Culture among the Forest Finns in Seventeenth-Century Sweden and America." In Scandinavian Colonialism and the Rise ef Modernity, edited by M. Naum andJ. M. Nordin, pp. 147-165. New York: Springer. Epperson, T. W. 2004. "Critical Race Theory and the Archaeology of the Africa Diaspora." Historical Archaeology38(1): 101-108.

31

Adam Fracchia

Fracchia, A. and S. A. Brighton, 2015. "Limestone and Ironstone: Capitalism, Value, and Destruction in a Nineteenth and Twentieth-Century Quarry Town." In HistoricalArchaeologiesof Capitalism, edited by Mark P. Leone andJoceyln E. Knauf, pp. 127-146. Cham: Springer. Franklin, M. and L. McKee, 2004. "Introduction African Diaspora Archaeologies: Present Insights and Expanding Discourses." HistoricalArchaeology,38(1): 1-9. Fredericksen, C. 2002. "Caring for History: Tiwi and Archaeological Narratives of Fort Dundas/ Punata, Melville Island, Australia." World Archaeology34(2): 288-302. Fry, B. 2007. "Reaching Out to the Bureaucracy and Beyond: Archaeology at Louisbourg and Parks Canada." In Past Meets Present:ArchaeologistsPartneringwith Museum Curators, Teachers,and Community Groups, edited by J. H. Jameson Jr. and S. Baugher, pp. 19-33. New York: Springer. Funari, P. P. A. 1999. "Historical Archaeology from a W odd Perspective." In HistoricalArchaeology,Back from the Edge, edited by P. P.A. Funari, M. Hall, and S. Jones, pp. 37-66. London: Routledge. Funari, P. P.A. 2007. "A Report on Historical Archaeology Publications in Latin America." International Journal of HistoricalArchaeology11 (2): 183-191. Funari, P. P. A. and A. Carvalho, 2014. "Global Archaeology." In Encyclopediaof Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith, pp. 3052-3059. New York: Springer. Funari, P. P. A., N. V. de Oliveira, and E. Tamanini, 2007. "Archaeology to the Lay Public in Brazil: Three Experiences." In Past Meets Present:ArchaeologistsPartneringwith Museum Curators, Teachers,and Community Groups, edited by J. H. Jameson Jr. and S. Baugher, pp. 217-228. New York: Springer. Funari, P. P. A. and L. M. Ferreira, 2016. "Historical Archaeology Outlook: A Latin American Perspective." HistoricalArchaeology50(3): 62-80. Funari, P. P. A., M. Hall, and S. Jones, eds. 1999a. HistoricalArchaeology,Back from the Edge. London: Routledge. London. Funari, P. P. A., M. Hall, and S. Jones, 1999b. "Introduction: Archaeology in History." In Historical Archaeology,Backfrom the Edge, edited by Funari, P. P.A., M. Hall, and S. Jones, pp. 1-20. London: Routledge. Funari, P. P. A. and M. X. Senatore, eds. 2015. Archaeologyof Culture Contractand Colonialismin Spanish and PortugueseAmerica. New York: Springer. Fur, G. 2006. Colonialismin the Margins: Cultural Encountersin New Sweden and Lapland. Leiden: Brill. Gadsby, D. A. 2010. "An Archaeology of Industrial Paternalism, Urbanization, and Class in Hampden, Baltimore, Maryland." PhD. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, American University, Washington, DC. Gereyles, I. and G. Kovacs, eds. 2003. Archaeologyefthe Ottoman Period in Hungary. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Gero,]. M. 1985. "Socio-Politics and the Women-at-Home Ideology." AmericanAntiquity 50: 342-350. Gero, J.M., and M. W. Conkey, eds. 1991. EngenderingArchaeology:Women and Prehistory.Cambridge: Blackwell. Gilchrist, R. 2005. "Introduction: Scales and Voices in World Historical Archaeology." World Archaeology 37(3): 329-336. Gomes, R. V., and T. Casimiro, 2013. "Post-Medieval Archaeology in Portugal." Post-MedievalArchaeology47(1): 17-34. Gonzalez-Ruibal, A. 2008. "Time to Destroy: Towards an Archaeology of Supermodernity." Current Anthropology49(2): 247-279. Gonzalez-Ruibal, A. 2016. "Archaeology and the Time of Modernity." Historical Archaeology 50(3): 144-164. Gonzalez-Tennant, E. 2016. "Recent Directions and Future Developments in Geographic Information Systems for Historical Archaeology." HistoricalArchaeology50(3): 24-49. Gonzalez-Tennant, E. and D. Gonzalez-Tennant, 2016. "The Practice and Theory of New Heritage for Historical Archaeology." HistoricalArchaeology50(1): 187-204. Goudreau, J. 2012. "The 10 Worst College Majors." Forbes October 11. www.forbes.com/sites/jenna goudreau/2012/ 10/11 /the-1 0-worst-college-majors/#5b2b 195e2586 Gould, R. A. 2007. DisasterArchaeology.Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press. Graves-Brown, P., ed. 2000. Matter, Materialityand Modern Culture. London: Routledge. Graves-Brown, P., R. Harrison, and A. Piccini, eds. 2013. The Oxford Handbook efthe Archaeologyof the ContemporaryWorld. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gullason, L. 2004/2005. "Canadian Arctic Historical Archaeology in Review." Revista De Arqueolog{a Americana23: 7-93.

32

A brief history of historical archaeology

Hall, M. 2000. Archaeologyand the Modern World: Colonial Transcriptsin South Africa and the Chesapeake. London: Routledge. Hamilakis, Y. 2005. "Whose World and Whose Archaeology? The Colonial Present and the Return of the Political." Archaeologies1: 94-101. Hamilakis, Y. and A. Anagnostopoulos, 2009. "What Is Archaeological Ethnography?" PublicArchaeology 8: 65-87. Hansen, D., and]. Fowler, 2007. "Protect and Present-Parks Canada and Public Archaeology in Atlantic Canada." In Past Meets Present:ArchaeologistsPartneringwith Museum Curators, Teachers,and Community Groups, edited by J. H. Jameson Jr. and S. Baugher, pp. 321-338. New York: Springer. Harrison, R. 2011. "Surface Assemblages. Towards an Archaeology in and of the Present." Archaeological Dialogues18(2): 141-161. Harris, G. and S. Erlanger, 2017. "U.S. Will Withdraw from UNESCO, Citing Its 'Anti-Israel Bias'." New York Times. October 13: A6. Harrison, R. 2016. "Archaeologies of Emergent Presents and Futures." Historical Archaeology 50(3): 165-180. Harrison, R., and C. Williamson, 2002. After Captain Cook: The Archaeologyefthe Recent IndigenousPast in Australia. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Hesse, R. 2012. "Using LiDAR-derived Local Relief Models (LRM) as a New Tool for Archaeological Prospection." In Landscape Archaeology between Art and Science From a Multi- to an Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by S. J. Kluiving and E.B. Guttmann-Bond, pp. 369-378. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Hicks, D. 2008. "Historical Archaeology in Britain." In EncyclopediaefArchaeology,D. M. Pearsall edited by, Oxford, UI{: Elsevier Science & Technology. Retrieved from http:/ /proxy-um.researchport. um d. edu/login ?url =http:// search. credoreference. corn/ content/ entry/ estarch/historical_archaeolo gy_in_britain/0?institutionid = 1210 Holtorf, C. and A. Piccini, eds. 2009. ContemporaryArchaeologies:Excavating Now. Bern: Peter Lang. Horning, A. 2013. Ireland and Britain in the Atlantic World: Colonialism in the British Atlantic. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Horning, A. 2016. "Transatlantic Currents: Exploring the Past, Present, and Future of Global Historical Archaeology." HistoricalArchaeology50(3): 111-126. Jamieson, R. W. 2005. "Colonialism, Social Archaeology and lo Andino: Historical Archaeology in the Andes." World Archaeology37(3): 352-372. Johnson, M. H. 1999. "Rethinking historical archaeology." In HistoricalArchaeology,Backfrom the Edge, edited by P. P.A. Funari, M. Hall, and S. Jones, pp. 22-36. London: Routledge. Jordan, I{. A. 2016. "Categories in Motion: Emerging Perspectives in the Archaeology of Postcolumbian Indigenous Communities." HistoricalArchaeology50(3): 62-80. Kiddey, R. and J. Schofield, 2011. "Embrace the Margins: Adventures in Archaeology and Homelessness." PublicArchaeology10(1): 4-22. Kinahan, J. 2000. "Cattle for Beads: The Archaeology of Historical Contact and Trade on the Namib Coast." Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University ofUppsala, Sweden. King, Thomas F. 2013. Cultural ResourceLaws and Practice.Lanham, MD: Altamira. Klagyivik, M. 2012. "The Use of Digital Devices in the Research of Hungarian Monastic Gardens of the 18th Century." In LandscapeArchaeologybetween Art and Sciencefrom a Multi- to an Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by S. J. Kluiving and E.B. Guttmann-Bond, pp. 379-394. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Kluiving, S. J. and E. B. Guttmann-Bond, eds. 2012. LandscapeArchaeologybetweenArt and ScienceFrom a Multi- to an InterdisciplinaryApproach.Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Kozakavich, S. C. 2006. "Doukhobor Identity and Communalism at I{irilovka Village Site." Historical Archaeology40(1): 119-132. Landon, D. B. 2009. "An Update on Zooarchaeology and Historical Archaeology: Progress and Prospects." In The InternationalHandbook of HistoricalArchaeology,edited by D. Gaimster and T. Majewski, pp. 77-104. New York: Springer. Lane, P. J. 2008. "Africa, Historical Archaeology." In Encyclopedia of Archaeology, edited by D. M. Pearsall, Oxford: Elsevier Science and Technology. http:/ /proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/ login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/ content/ entry/ estarch/ africa_historical_archaeology /0? institutionid = 1210 Leone, M. P. 1995. "A Historical Archaeology of Capitalism." AmericanAnthropologist97: 251-268.

33

Adam Fracchia

Leone, M. P. 2010. CriticalHistoricalArchaeology.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Leone, M. P. and J. E. Knauf, eds. 2015a. HistoricalArchaeologiesef Capitalism. Second Edition. Cham: Springer. Leone, M. P. and J. E. I{nauf, 2015b. "Introduction to Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism." In Historical Archaeologiesof Capitalism, Second Edition, edited by M. P. Leone and J. E. Knauf, pp. 3-22. Cham: Springer. Leone, M. P., C. J. LaRoche, and]. J. Babiarz, 2005. "The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent Times." Annual Review efAnthropology34: 575-598. Leone, M. P. and P. Potter, eds. 1999. HistoricalArchaeologiesef Capitalism. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Lindmark, D. 2013. "Colonial Encounters in Early Modern Sapmi." In Scandinavian Colonialismand the Rise efModernity, edited by M. Naum and]. M. Nordin, pp. 131-146. New York: Springer. Little, B. J. 1992. Text-Aided Archaeology.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Little, B. J. 2007. HistoricalArchaeology:Why the Past Matters. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Little, B. J., and P. A. Shackel, eds. 2007. Archaeologyas a Tool ef Civic Engagement. Lanham, MD: AltaMira. Little, B. J., and P.A. Shackel, 2014. Archaeology,Heritage, and Civic Engagement.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Lyons, N. 2013. Where the Wind Blows Us: PracticingCritical Community Archaeologyin the Canadian North. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Marshall, Y. 2002. "What Is Community Archaeology?" World Archaeology34(2): 211-219. Martin, J. G., A. Brooks, and T. A. Lima, 2012. "Crossing Borders and Maintaining Identities: Perspectives on Current Research in South American Historical Archaeology." HistoricalArchaeology46(3): 1-15. Matsuda, A. 2014. "Japan: Cultural Heritage Management." In Encyclopediaof Global Archaeology,edited by Claire Smith, pp. 4156-4160. New York: Springer. Matthews, C. N. 2016. "Historical Archaeology in the Next Decades: An Introduction." Historical Archaeology50(3): 1-4. Mayne, A. and T. Murray, eds. 2001. The Archaeologyof Urban Landscapes:Explorationsin Slum/and. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McAtackney, L. 2014. An Archaeology ef the Troubles: The Dark Heritage of Long Kesh/Maze Prison. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McAtackney, L. 2015. "Memorials and Marching: Archaeological Insights into Segregation and Contemporary Northern Ireland." HistoricalArchaeology49(3): 110-125. McAtackney, L., M. Palus, and A. Piccini, eds. 2007. Contemporaryand HistoricalArchaeologyin Theory: Papersfrom the 2003 and 2004 CHAT Conferences.Oxford: Archaeopress. McDavid, C. 2002. "Archaeologies that Hurt; Descendants that Matter: A Pragmatic Approach to Collaboration in the Public Interpretation of African-American Archaeology." World Archaeology34(2): 303-314. McGuire, R. 2006. "Marxism and Capitalism in Historical Archaeology." In The CambridgeCompanion to HistoricalArchaeology,edited by D. Hicks and M. C. Beaudry, pp. 123-142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McGuire, R. 2008. Archaeologyas PoliticalAction. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. McGuire, R. H. and P. Reckner, 2003. "Building a Working-Class Archaeology: The Colorado Coal Field War Project." IndustrialArchaeologyReview 25(2): 83-95. Mehler, N. 2013. "Globalization, Immigration, and Transformation: Thoughts from a European Perspective." HistoricalArchaeology47(1): 38-49. Merritt, C. W., G. Weisz, and K. J. Dixon, 2012. '"Verily the Road was Built with Chinaman's Bones': An Archaeology of Chinese Line Camps in Montana." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology16 (4): 666-695. Meskell, L. 2002. "Negative Heritage and Past Mastering in Archaeology." AnthropologicalQuarterly 75 (3): 557-574. Meyers, M., T. Boudreax, S. Carmody, V. Dekle, E. Horton, and A. Wright, 2015. "Preliminary Results of the SEAC Sexual Harassment Survey." Horizon and Tradition: The Newsletterefthe SoutheasternArchaeologicalConference57(1): 19-35. Mont6n-Subias, S., and W. Meyer, 2014. "Engendered Archaeologies." In Encyclopediaef GlobalArchaeology, edited by C. Smith, pp. 2372-2381. New York: Springer.

34

A brief history of historical archaeology

Moral, E. 2016. "Qu(e)erying Sex and Gender in Archaeology: A Critique of the 'Third' and Other Sexual Categories."Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23(3): 788-809. Moreland, J.2001. Archaeologyand Text. London: Duckworth. Moshenska, G. 2013. "Conflict." In The Oxford Handbook ef the Archaeologyof the Contemporary World, edited by P. Graves-Brown, R. Harrison, and A. Piccini, pp. 351-363. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mrozowski, S. A. 2009. "Pulling the Threads Together: Issues of Theory and Practice in an Archaeology of the Modem World." In CrossingPaths or Sharing Tracks?Future Directionsfor the ArchaeologicalStudy efPost-1550 Britain and Ireland, edited by A. Horning and M. Palmer, pp. 381-396. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. Mullins, P. 2012. "Defining a Global Historical Archaeology." SHA Blog, President's Corner. Dec. 6. https: / / sha.org/blog/2012/ 12/ defining-a-global-historical-archaeology/. Myers, A. 2010. "Camp Delta, Google Earth and the Ethics of Remote Sensing in Archaeology." World Archaeology42: 455-467. Myers, A. and G. Moshensha, eds. 2011. Archaeologiesof Internment. New York: Springer. National Center for Education Statistics, 2017. "Digest of Education Statistics." Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/. Naum, M. and J. M. Nordin, eds. 2013. Scandinavian Colonialism and the Rise efModernity. New York: Springer. Nicholas, G. P., ed. 2010. Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Nida, B. 2013. "Demystifying the Hidden Hand: Capital and the State at Blair Mountain." Historical Archaeology47(3): 52-68. Noble, V. E. 2014. "Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA) (Historical Archaeology)." In Encyclopedia efGlobalArchaeology,edited by C. Smith, pp. 6771-6773. New York: Springer. Nordin, J. M. 2013. "The Centre of the World: The Material Construction of Eurocentric Domination and Hybridity in a Scandinavian 17th-Century Context." Journal of Material Culture 18 (2): 189-209. O'Keeffe, T. 2014. "Heritage and Archaeology." In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by C. Smith, pp. 3258-3268. New York: Springer. Oliver, J. and N. Curtis, 2015. "Contemporary and Historical Archaeology of the North: An Introduction." HistoricalArchaeology49(3): 1-6. Orange, H., ed. 2015. Reanimating Industrial Spaces: Conducting Memory Work in Post-IndustrialSocieties. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast. Orser, C. E., Jr. 1996. A HistoricalArchaeologyof the Modern World. New York: Plenum Press. Orser, C. E., Jr. 1999. "The Challenge of Race to American Historical Archaeology." American Anthropologist 100: 661-668. Orser, C. E., Jr. 2008. "Historical Archaeology as Modern-World Archaeology in Argentina." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology12(3): 181-194. Orser, C. E., Jr. 2010. "Twenty-First-Century Historical Archaeology." Journal efArchaeologicalResearch 18(2): 111-150. Orser, C. E., Jr. 201 la. "The Archaeology of Poverty and the Poverty of Archaeology." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology15(4): 533-543. Orser, C. E., Jr. 201 lb. "Beneath the Surface of Tenement Life: The Dialectics of Race and Poverty during America's First Gilded Age." HistoricalArchaeology45(3): 151-165. Orser, C. E., Jr. 2012. "Why the Gilded Age ... and Why Now?" InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology 16(4): 623-633. Orser, C. E., Jr. 2014. A Primeron Modern-World Archaeology.New York: Eliot Werner. Orser Jr., C. E., and C. J.Donnelly, 2008. "Historical Archaeology in Ireland." In EncyclopediaefArchaeology, edited by D. M. Pearsall, Oxford: Elsevier Science & Technology. http:/ /proxy-um.research port. umd.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/ content/ entry/ estarch/historical_archaeo logy _in_ireland/0?institutionid = 1210 Palmer, M. 2007. "Names and Agenda: Industrial and Postmediaeval Archaeology Today." The Archaeologist(Journalof the Institute of Field Archaeologists)64: 9-11. Paynter, R. 2000. "Historical and Anthropological Archaeology: Forging Alliances." Journal of ArchaeologicalResearch8: 1-3 7.

35

Adam Fracchia

Paynter, R. 2012. "Commentary on Gilded Ages, Now and Then." InternationalJournal ef Historical Archaeology16(4): 776-783. Pearson, M. 2011. "Polar Heritage Conservation and Archaeology." In Polar Settlements Location, Techniques and Conservation,edited by S. Barr and P. Chaplin, pp. 24-34. Norway: International Polar Heritage Committee, International Council on Monuments and Sites. Picketty, T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Pikirayi, I. 2009. "Palaces, Feiras and Prazos: An Historical Archaeological Perspective of Review 26(3): 163-85. African-Portuguese Contact in Northern Zimbabwe." African Archaeological Powers, N. and L. Sibun, 2013. "Forensic Archaeology." In The Oxford Handbook efthe Archaeologyof the Contemporary World, edited by P. Graves-Brown, R. Harrison, and A. Piccini, pp. 40-53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prangnell, J.2013. "Colonialism and the Peel Island Lazaret: Changing the World One Story at a Time." HistoricalArchaeology4 7 (1): 66- 79. Preucel, R. W. and C. N. Cipolla, 2008. "Indigenous and Postcolonial Archaeologies." In Archaeology and the PostcolonialCritique, edited by M. Liebmann and U. Z. Rizvi, pp. 129-140. Lanham: Altarnira Press. Quintero, M. S. and R. Eppich, 2016. "Introduction - Current Trends in Cultural Heritage and Documentation." In 3D Recording, Documentation and Management ef Cultural Heritage, edited by E. Stylianidis and F. Remondino, pp. 1-13. Dunbeath: Whittles Publishing. Reid, A. M. and P. J. Lane, eds. 2004a. African HistoricalArchaeologies.New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum. Reid, A. M. and P. J. Lane, 2004b. "African Historical Archaeologies: An Introductory Consideration of Scope and Potential." In African HistoricalArchaeologies,edited by A. M. Reid and P. J. Lane, pp. 1-32. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Richards, J. D. 2008. "Managing Digital Preservation and Access: The Archaeology Data Service." In Managing ArchaeologicalResources: Global Context, National Programs, Local Actions, edited by F. P. McManamon, A. Stout, and]. A. Barnes, pp. 173-194. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Roksandic, I., ed. 2016. Cuban Archaeologyin the Caribbean.Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Roller, M. P. 2013. "Rewriting Narratives of Labor Violence: A Transnational Perspective of the Lattimer." HistoricalArchaeology47(3): 109-23. Rushohora, N. A. 2015. "An Archaeological Identity of the Majimaji: Toward an Historical Archaeology ofResistance to German Colonization in Southern Tanzania." Archaeologies:Journalefthe World ArchaeologicalCongress11 (2): 246- 71. Sabloff, J. A. 2008. ArchaeologyMatters: Action Archaeologyin the Modern World. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Saitta, D. J.2007. The Archaeologyof CollectiveAction. Gainesville, TN: University Press of Florida. Schavelzon, D. 2013. "Argentina and Great Britain: Studying an Asymmetrical Relationship through Domestic Material Culture." HistoricalArchaeology47(1): 10-25. Schavelzon, D. 2000. The HistoricalArchaeologyefBuenos Aires: A City at the End efthe World. New York: I{luwer Academic/Plenum. Schmidt, P. 2006. Historical Archaeology in Africa: Representation, Social Memory and Oral Traditions. Lanham, MD: Altarnira Press. Schofield, J. and W. G. Johnson, 2006. "Archaeology, Heritage and the Recent and Contemporary Past". In The Cambridge Companion to HistoricalArchaeology,edited by D. Hicks and M. C. Beaudry, pp. 104-122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sebastian, L. 2010. "The Future ofCRM Archaeology." In Archaeologyand Cultural ResourceManagement: Visionsfor the Future, edited by L. Sebastian and W. D. Lipe, pp. 3-18. Santa FE, NM: School for Advanced Research Press. Sen, S. 2002. "Community Boundary, Secularized Religion and Imagined Past in Bangladesh: Archaeology and Historiography of Unequal Encounter." World Archaeology34(2): 346-62. Shackel, P.A. 2013. "A Historical Archaeology of Labor and Social Justice." AmericanAnthropologist115 (2): 1548-1433. Shackel, P.A. 2010. "Remembering New Philadelphia." HistoricalArchaeology44(1): 7-19. Shackel, P. A. and E. J. Chambers, eds. 2004. Placesin Mind: Public Archaeologyas Applied Anthropology. New York: Routledge.

36

A brief history of historical archaeology

Shackel, P. A. and M. M. Palus, 2006. "The Gilded Age and Working-Class Industrial Communities." AmericanAnthropologist108(4): 828-41. Shackel, P. A. and M. P. Roller, 2012. "The Gilded Age Wasn't So Gilded in the Anthracite Region of Pennsylvania." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology16(4): 7 61- 7 5. Silliman, S. W., ed. 2008. Collaboratingat the Trowel's Edge: Teachingand Learningin IndigenousArchaeology. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Silverman, H. 2011. "Contested Cultural Heritage: A Selective Historiography." In Contested Culture Heritage:Religion, Nationalism, Erasure, and Exclusion in a Global World, edited by H. Silverman, pp. 1-49. New York: Springer. Silverman, H., and D. F. Ruggles, eds. 2007. Cultural Heritageand Human Rights. New York: Springer. Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA), 2017. Gender and Minority Affairs Committee. Society for Historical Archaeology. https:/ / sha.org/ committees/ gender-minority-affairs-committee/ Stahl, A. 2001. Making History in Banda: AnthropologicalVisions of Africa's Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stark, M. T. 2014. "South and Southeast Asia: Historical Archaeology." In Encyclopediaof GlobalArchaeology, edited by C. Smith, pp. 6841-6849. New York: Springer. Stewart, T. J. 2017. "Archaeology Under Attack." AmericanArchaeology20(4): 42-46. Stottman, M. J., ed. 2010. Archaeologistsas Activists: Can ArchaeologyChange the World? Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Stover, E. and M. Ryan. 2001. "Breaking Bread with the Dead." HistoricalArchaeology35(1): 7-25. Symonds, J., R. O'Neill, and 0. Jessop, 2006. "What Can We Learn from the Excavation and Building Recording of Cutlery Sites in Sheffield?" Post-MedievalArchaeology40: 214-18. Theune, C. 2015. "Archaologie in ehemaligen Konzentrationslagern [Archaeology in former concentration camps]." Mitteilungen Der GesellschaftFur Landeskunde Und Denkmalp.fiegeOberiisterreich45(2): 7-10. Theune, C. 2013. "Archaeology and Remembrance: The Contemporary Archaeology of Concentration Camps, Prisoner-of-War Camps, and Battlefields." In The Archaeologyef Central Europe, edited by N. Mehler, pp. 241-260. Rockville: Society for Historical Archaeology. US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2018a. "Occupational Outlook Handbook: Anthropologists and Archeologists." US Bureau of Labor Statistics. www.bls.gov/ ooh/Life-Physical-and-Social-Science/ Anthropologists-and-archeologists.htm. US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2018b. "Occupational Outlook Handbook: Construction Managers." US Bureau of Labor Statistics. www.bls.gov/ ooh/management/ construction-managers. htm Van Buren, M. 2014. "Hispanic South America: Historical Archaeology." In Encyclopediaef Global Archaeology,edited by C. Smith, pp. 3375-3382. New York: Springer. Verhagen, P. 2012. "Biting Off More than We Can Chew? The Current and Future Role of Digital Techniques in Landscape Archaeology." In LandscapeArchaeologybetweenArt and Sciencefrom a Multito an InterdisciplinaryApproach, edited by S. J. Kluiving and E.B. Guttmann-Bond, pp. 309-320. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Voss, B. L. 2005. "The Archaeology of Overseas Chinese Communities." World Archaeology 37(3): 424-39. Voss, B. L. 2000. "Feminisms, Queer Theories, and the Archaeological Study of Past Sexualities." World Archaeology32(2): 180-92. Voss, B. L., and R. Allen, 2008. "Overseas Chinese Archaeology: Historical Foundations, Current Reflections, and New Directions." HistoricalArchaeology42(3): 5-28. Wagtendonk, A. J., P. Verhagen, S. Soetens, I{. Jeneson, and M. de Kleijn, 2009. "Past in Place: The Role of Geo-ICT in Present-day Archaeology." In Geospatial Technologyand the Role of Location in Science, edited by H. J. Scholten, R. van de Velde, and N. van Manen, pp. 59-86. Dordrecht: Springer. Weinstein, A. 2011. "Rick Scott to Liberal Arts Majors: Drop Dead." MotherJones October 11, 2011. www.motherjones. corn/ politics/2011I10/ rick-scott-liberal-arts-majors-drop-dead-anthropology /. Wilkie, L. A. 2005. "Inessential Archaeologies: Problems of Exclusion in Americanist Archaeological Thought." World Archaeology37(3): 337-51. Williams, B. and B. L. Voss, 2008. "The Archaeology of Chinese Immigrant and Chinese American Communities." HistoricalArchaeology42(3): 1-4.

37

Adam Fracchia

Wilson, B. C. 2015. In the Shadow efthe Cathedral:The Productionof UrbanLandscapes,Human Environment Interaction, and Ruination in Ve/ha Goa during Portuguese Colonial Occupation. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL and Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. Wilson, B. C. and M. W. Hauser, 2016. "Toward a South Asian Historical Archaeology." Historical Archaeology50(4): 7-21. Wood, M. C. 2002. "Moving Towards Transformative Democratic Action Through Archaeology." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology6(3): 187-98. Wurst, L. and S. A. Mrozowski, 2016. "Capitalism in Motion." HistoricalArchaeology50(3): 81-99. Wurst, L. and S. A. Mrozowski, 2014. "Toward an Archaeology of the Future." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology18: 210-23. Zarinebaf, F., J. Bennet, and J. Davis, 2005. A Historicaland Economic Geographyef Ottoman Greece:The Southwestern Morea in the 18th Century. Athens: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Athens. Zarankin, A., and M.A. Salerno, 2008a. "Historical Archaeology in Americas, South." In Encyclopediaof Archaeology, edited by D. M. Pearsall, Oxford: Elsevier Science & Technology. http:/ /proxy-um. researchport. umd.edu/login?url =http:/ I search.credoreference. corn/ content/ entry/ estarch/historica l_archaeology /0?institutionid = 1210 Zarankin, A. and M. A. Salerno, 2008b. '"Looking South': Historical Archaeology in South America." HistoricalArchaeology42(4): 38-58. Zarankin, A. and M. X. Senatore, 2005. "Archaeology in Antarctica: Nineteenth-Century Capitalism Expansion Strategies." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology9(1): 43-56. Zimmerman, L. J. and]. Welch, 2011. "Displaced and Barely Visible: Archaeology and the Material Culture of Homelessness." HistoricalArchaeology45(1): 67-85.

38

PART 2

Core issues and topics

3

COLONIALISMIN HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY A review of issues and perspectives Stephen W. Silliman

Colonialism is foundational to historical archaeology. In 1nany places around the world and no matter how it is defined, colonialism sets the terms of research, provides the1nes, anchors periods, influences perspectives, situates politics, and - in the words of Orser (1996) "haunts" the disciplinary field. In fact, colonialis1n defines historical archaeology for most of its practitioners, even if they do not explicitly engage it as an issue. Why do we have "historical archaeology" as a na1ned field of study, rather than just an archaeology broadly speaking that works on many time periods and can use, when available, textual sources? The answer: Because historical archaeology emerged in the 1960s in the United States and other settler colonial nations in Latin America, Africa, Australia, and parts of the Pacific as a way to distinguish its topical focus (mainly colonial and settler histories) and its method (textaided research) from its more prominent and longstanding counterpart in "prehistoric archaeology" that focused on indigenous histories until those colonial arrivals. One 1night think that defining an entire subfield of archaeology based on colonial encounter and settlement would ensure that historical archaeologists always pay careful attention to what colonialism is or is not in the past and in the present. However, this was not the case for about 25 years after the for1nation of the Society for Historical Archaeology in the United States in 1967. With the exception of scholars like Kathleen Deagan, Charles Cleland, and Ja1nes Deetz, 1nany historical archaeologists in that burgeoning field tended to focus on anything but the indigenous people who continued to exist beyond that supposed "break" marked by the arrival of colonists with texts. Such a tendency kept colonialism out of serious consideration as a real analytical anchor in historical archaeology, relegating it to an ostensibly neutral field definer, until the years leading up to the North A1nerican Columbian Quincentenary in 1992 - the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' landfall in the Caribbean. The 1990s marked a serious uptick in archaeological studies of indigenous histories within and through the colonial process, spanning the settler colonial areas of the Americas, Australia, the Pacific, and parts of Africa (mainly South Africa). As the decade 1noved on, the limits of "acculturation" fra1neworks were exposed (Cusick, 1998b; Lightfoot, 1995), the prehistory-history divide underwent strong critique (Lightfoot, 1995), the emphasis on frontiers and cross-cultural exchange intensified (Lightfoot and Martinez, 1995; Lightfoot et al., 1998), and some lessons of postcolonial and indigenous studies began to appear even

41

Stephen W. Silliman

if the postcolonial literature itself was not yet fully tapped (Hall, 2000; Rubertone, 2000; Schrire, 1995). These important move1nents encouraged historical archaeological studies of colonialism to give due weight to the "colonized," amplifying understandings of indigenous historical and cultural experiences and moving interpretations well beyond earlier acculturation models. However, the "due weight" led to a certain kind of fixation on the colonized rather than a broader view of colonialism and indigeneity. This resulted in three kinds of bracketing. First, the rather slow uptake of postcolonial thinking in historical archaeology had scholars picking up new interpretive postcolonial possibilities for the past but not engaging fully with ele1nents of a necessary decolonization in the present. Second, the e1nphasis on colonialism as a way to improve historical archaeologies of indigenous people did not have a parallel in the archaeologies of the African Diaspora. These subfields developed along rather separate paths fro1n the early 1990s until almost the 201 0s, in large part due to the different ways that colonialis1n (i.e., as "culture contact") was framed or defined and the 1naintenance of silos of race and ethnicity. Third, the bracketing of "the colonized" often meant that many historical archaeologists continued their work on "the colonizer" with theories less engaged with colonialism and themes less attuned to decolonization. Or perhaps researchers felt comfortable just doing "regular" historical archaeology on the colonizer side (maybe with less theory overall) or could just emphasize colonization and settle1nent as events with historical beginnings and ends instead of actual colonialism as an extensive process with manifestations still present today. Some of the fade in colonialism from historical archaeology's core can be seen in the shift from its pillar role in Orser's (1996) synthesis to its mere passing mention in his thorough review of historical archaeology almost 15 years later (Orser, 2010). Historical archaeologies of colonialism have 1noved in interesting directions since the advent of the new millennium, sometimes upholding those brackets while other times chipping away at them. This chapter takes up the challenge of reviewing the arc of those studies since 2000. To do so in a way that hopefully proves useful requires that I focus not on a review of case studies around the world or the many themes that unify and diversify historical archaeology's focus on colonialism. Beyond the perusal of 1nost 1najor journals that now regularly carry pieces focused on colonialis1n, one can consult a variety of edited collections for some of that diversity (Cipolla, 2013b; Cipolla and Hayes, 2015; Funari and Senatore, 2015; Liebmann and Murphy, 2010; Lyons and Papadopolous, 2002; Mont6n-Subias and Cruz Berrocal, 2016; Murray, 2004; Oland et al., 2012; Panich and Schneider, 2014; Scheiber and Mitchell, 2010; Sch1nidt and Mrozowski, 2014; Stein, 2005; Voss and Casella, 2012). Instead, I aim to address the debates and advances of the last two decades, especially so1ne perspectives not given a chapter of their own in the "Theoretical Approaches" section of this volume, as well as the areas in which we should expect to see 1nore development in the coming years.

Coming to terms with colonialism This heading should be taken quite literally alongside its co1nmon 1netaphorical connotation. The historical archaeology of colonialism during the last two decades has devoted considerable time to trying to sort out proper terminology for fra1ning it in the most analytically, politically, and historically satisfactory ways. The two key arenas of discussion have been: the phenomenon we are trying to study - culture contact, colonialism, cultural entangle1nent, or so1nething else - and the kinds of cultural and political processes at work for those 42

Colonialism in historical archaeology

caught up in it - culture change/ continuity, persistence, survivance, ethnogenesis, diaspora, etc. The first concern has been the naming of what historical archaeologists claim to study and how that naming relates to broader issues. As the twenty-first century approached, the mot-du-jour for the study of indigenous people caught in the cultural and colonial encounters of the post-Columbia era was "culture contact," with the corresponding te1nporal label of the "Contact Period." Cusick (1998a) took the ambitious step of calling for a broader set of culture contact studies that 1night galvanize historical archaeologists alongside those who worked on issues of encounter, exchange, and entanglement in more ancient times. Saine of the best work of this era is exemplified by Deagan's (1998, 2003) approaches to Spanish colonialism in La Florida and the Caribbean and Lightfoot's (Lightfoot, 1995, 2004; Lightfoot et al., 1998) studies on the West Coast of North America. This latter groundbreaking project moved well past the acculturation baggage of its predecessors in the 1980s, introduced practice theory to the toolkit of historical archaeologists, and drew attention to the need for diachronic, multiscalar, and pan-regional archaeological approaches. About five years into the new century, some of the interpretive limitations of the label "culture contact" had beco1ne apparent (Gosden, 2004; Harrison, 2002, 2004; Loren, 2008; Murray, 2004; Silliman, 2005). It kept archaeologists, especially those just riding the 'contact period' wave rather than engaging it theoretically and politically like Lightfoot (1995) intended, mired in some interpretive legacies of earlier acculturation 1nodels, out of touch with their cultural anthropology colleagues who had long abandoned that term, and too little engaged with postcolonial critiques already well underway in anthropology and cultural studies (e.g., Bhabha, 1985; Hall, 2000; Thomas, 1991, 1994). This insufficient engagement ste1nmed directly from a reluctance to call these cultural encounters what they were: colonialis1n. Doing so would permit more explicit engage1nent with ongoing processes, in both the past and the present, and their implications for contemporary issues (Silliman, 2005). The latter part of the decade saw archaeologists, many of the1n historical archaeologists, engaging directly with postcolonialism (e.g., Haber, 2016; Lieb1nann and Rizvi, 2008; Lydon and Rizvi, 2010; van Dommelen, 2006). These archaeologists turned to cultural studies and historical anthropology, although they were doing so with some time lag. Postcolonial theory provided a language to unpack the dichotomous ways of conceptualizing colonialism in the past (e.g., colonizer/colonized, European/Native), to advance thinking about what it means to act within or between categories (e.g., hybridity, third space, mimicry), and to better situate agency in "colonial projects" (sensu Thomas, 1994) rather than in 1nonolithic "sides" of colonialism. In terms of the present, these postcolonially oriented archaeologists also wanted to expose and critique the links between past colonialis1n and the settler-colonial and neocolonial world of today. This meant not only addressing the legacies of language and classification in contemporary practice, but also listening to and making space for scholars writing and speaking back against imperialism and colonialis1n. Such acknowledgment provided more space for new scholarly and political voices in historical archaeology and, equally importantly, turned postcolonial thinking toward decolonizing practice, which draws equal inspiration fro1n indigenous perspective and theory as it does from a designated "postcolonial" lens (see Byrd, 2016; Haber, 2016). Terminology was not settled, though. An argu1nent surfaced around the same time that found the switch from "culture contact" to "colonialism" an overstep of the definition Gordan, 2009, 2010, 2014). Although Jordan agreed that "culture contact" had to go, he suggested something else between (or instead of) the actual first 1noments of contact and the later colonialis1n that we could easily label based on hindsight. He referred to this process as 43

Stephen W. Silliman

"cultural entangle1nent," drawing inspiration fro1n Alexander (1998). He wanted to emphasize the lack of finality and clarity of the colonial process, the assertions of indigenous autonomy during these early interactions, and the role of political econo1ny. In so doing, he chose to take the vantage point of people acting in their own times rather than rely on outcomes already known to archaeologists looking back. Although the correctives on temporality and political econo1ny proved astute and have contributed to a growing emphasis on entanglement as a process (see below), the notion of "cultural entanglement" as a phase or period does not seem to have taken hold. Instead, many historical archaeologists have shifted to the ter1ninology of colonialism even if tempering it to account for the aforementioned issues - for their comparative work, or they have taken an important step to strip ti1ne periods of their trappings of process and instead refer to the1n by calendar date to ensure that analyses can be about culture not periodization (Scheiber and Mitchell, 2010). The latter has per1nitted a 1nore sophisticated view of long-term indigenous histories that situate colonialism/ contact in extended cultural and historical trajectories rather than subsume them in the be-all-andend-all pivot point of European arrival in their ho1nelands. Such a move has been assisted by the renewed harsh and relevant critique of the prehistory-history divide (Lightfoot, 1995; Sch1nidt and Mrozowski, 2014) and an emphasis on "trans-conquest" views (Wernke, 2007). That said, the number of archaeologists in North A1nerica and perhaps elsewhere who continue to refer to the "Contact Period" when they are clearly talking about deeply colonial contexts hints that so1ne of these ter1ninological and analytical refinements have still not fully taken root.

Refining interpretive models Accompanying the deepening understandings of colonialism within historical archaeology have been notable refinements in how we interpret the historical experiences of those who have endured colonialism. Although caution is required in defining those "endurers" (e.g., indigenous, the colonized, the subaltern), it is safe to say that 1nost historical archaeologists who orient their studies to colonialism (or culture contact or cultural entanglement) e1nphasize how indigenous people experienced colonialism and, more frequently than not, made their way through it despite considerable odds and losses. Yet, how archaeologists frame that e1nphasis and spin their interpretation has diversified over the last 20 years thanks to a variety of influences from postcolonial, practice, indigenous, and other theories. These have gifted concepts such as resistance, hybridity, creolization, entanglement, persistence, survivance, and ethnogenesis.

Resistance One of the most welco1ne additions - and yet 1nost intractable concepts - in historical archaeologies of colonialis1n has been "resistance." The welcome features it brought include a strong e1nphasis on agency, careful consideration of intentionality, reminder that do1nination is not total or final, inclination toward recognizing cultural preservation as struggle against the odds, and recognition of the intersection of race, class, and gender. The concept of "resistance" slips into historical archaeologies of colonialism in rather subtle ways, borrowing in part from historical archaeologies of class and labor that already had resistance as a key feature since the early 1990s (e.g., Paynter and McGuire, 1991) and riding the

44

Colonialism in historical archaeology

historiographic trends that have emphasized conflict and war in the colonization of the Americas, Australia, and other places. That said, the subtlety of entry into colonial studies also contributes to so1ne of the unwieldiness of "resistance." Notions of resistance have frequently found their way into interpretations without much theoretical guidance, which has led to analytical uncertainties about whether resistance can be characterized as active or passive, intentional or unintentional, and organized as a collective or simply individual quotidian acts. As obvious and relatively undebatable as resistance is in certain instances (e.g., rebellions, sabotages, strikes), it can prove difficult to pinpoint in other circu1nstances, especially those that characterize archaeological datasets, and yet remarkably easy to project anywhere and everywhere. Even in cases of outright revolt, such as the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, applying "resistance" without care draws away fro1n, rather than illuminates, indigenous motives, relationships, and strategies as Liebmann (2010; Liebmann, 2012) aptly documents. Widespread claims of resistance also contribute to the narratives of heroism by the "underdogs" in colonialis1n, which are certainly important antidotes to acculturation's stories of demise and civic history's neglect of those who tried to counter do1ninant national narratives. However, they are also blunt instru1nents that flatten the nuances of history and colonialism. This point is made repeatedly and quite usefully in the chapters in Liebmann and Murphy (2010). To further refine the applicability of resistance, a companion term of "residence" has been recommended (Silliman, 2014) to address indigenous actions that do not always outwardly resist and that instead strive to "make do," in the practice sense of Michel de Certeau, as part of co1nmunity and household survivals (see also Sheptak et al., 2010). Others have kept resistance in a useful analytical space by linking it specifically to social 1ni1nicry and hybridity (Pezzarossi, 2014), to juxtaposition with indigenous social strategies in "hinterlands" (Schneider, 2016), or to mobility as a social and political strategy in the Amazon (Silva and Noelli, 2015).

Hybridity The watchword of postcolonial theory in historical archaeologies of colonialis1n has been hybridity. In many ways, it has come to replace "creolization" - for better or worse, as they are different - that had been more common in historical archaeology leading up to the twenty-first century (e.g., Cusick, 2000; Dawdy, 2000; Ferguson, 1992; Loren, 2004; Mullins and Paynter, 2000). Further accentuating the decline, Richard (2014: 45) also explicitly substitutes "cultural hybridity" for "creolization," although one can find the occasional case where they are seemingly used interchangeably (e.g., Mrozowski, 2010). VanValkenburgh (2013: figure 1) de1nonstrates this terminological shift nicely. For that reason, along with the stinging critique offered by Palmie (2006) and the often slim connections drawn between creolization and colonialism, I do not consider creolization further here. In its postcolonial manifestations through the work of Homi Bhabha and the linguist Mikhail Bahktin, hybridity has provided important ways to acknowledge ambiguity and lack of finality in colonial projects, to recognize a "thirdspace" between dichotomous classifications in both discourse and practice, to highlight cultural creativity and subversion in overbearing colonial do1ninations, to help distinguish between intentional and unintentional changes in material and cultural worlds, and to enable archaeologists to reconsider the origins and 1neanings of material objects and practices. Robust articulations of hybridity in archaeologies of colonialism have appeared in discussions of kachinas, furniture quirts, and repatriation in the A1nerican Southwest and Great Plains (Liebmann, 2008, 2015), bodily 45

Stephen W. Silliman

adorn1nent in the American Southeast and New England (Loren, 2013), ceramic use and social camouflage in Native New England (Pezzarossi, 2014), and the complexities of 1nuseum curation and categorization (Loren, 2015). Others have expanded on considerations of hybridity when considering the Metis of Canada (Beaudoin, 2013, 2014; Moussette, 2003); the production of ceramics in the Andes (VanValkenburgh et al., 2017) and the Maya region (Card, 2013a; Harrison-Buck et al., 2013); politics of dress (Horning, 2014; Loren, 2013); spatiality and identity in the Andes (Wernke, 2010); and others (see Card, 2013b). I have no doubt that these usages have advanced new ways of interpreting material objects, cultural practices, social identities, and com1nunities in the context of colonialism. However, the problem facing historical archaeologists today is that the uses of the word and concept, "hybridity," have drifted fro1n their postcolonial anchors in recent years (Silli1nan, 2015b; Stockham1ner, 2012, 2013). Some archaeologists utilize hybridity in an almost nineteenth-century fashion to refer to biological and cultural mixing, some define it as the innovations that come from two or 1nore cultural traditions coming into contact, so1ne harken back to its foundations in linguistics and creolization, and some situate it in a posthu1nanist actor-network theory of agency. Many of these do not have an explicit context in colonialis1n at all. Even worse, some archaeologists have simply begun to use "hybridity" as merely a description of intercultural encounter, 1nixture, or fusion, rather than as a concept drawn from a theoretical source (see Pappa, 2013). As a result, many historical archaeologists talking about hybridity are as all-over-the-map as those talking about resistance, and the only hope a reader has for clarity is if the researcher has bothered to be explicit about what they mean by hybridity. Otherwise, the watchword has become only a buzzword. This helps to explain the shift from creolization to hybridity among casual archaeological users: so1ne simply use it as a "hot button" word to describe cultural 1nixture. Even though I personally feel that the time is up for hybridity in historical archaeologies of colonialism (Silliman, 2015b), I re1nain optimistic that what it has brought to our understandings has some staying power whether we choose to continue with "hybridity" - provided that it is theoretically grounded - or to shift the terminological perspective. Recent e1nphases on innovation (Mrozowski et al., 2015) and asse1nbling (Law Pezzarossi, 2014) in indigenous co1nmunity and household practices may provide some way out, as may some perspectives that blend postcoloniality and posthumanism to engage indigenous ontologies (McAnany and Brown, 2016). Some pair it, or contrast it, with entanglement.

Entanglement "Entanglement" re1nains caught between, or tangled within(?), its potential roles as theory, as 1nethod, or as analytical definition. As a result, it has had a mixed contribution to historical archaeologies of colonialism. Entanglement owes its origins in the anthropology of colonialism to Thomas's (1991) foundational work on the colonial encounter and the ways that 1naterial objects underwent recontextualization. Yet, despite that important book, which has informed postcolonial archaeology, the idea of entanglement has not enjoyed a rich history in the archaeology of colonialism until quite recently (Law Pezzarossi and Sheptak, 2019; see review in Silliman, 2016). As noted earlier, Alexander (1998) and Jordan (2009, 2014) took on the task of navigating the various paths and perspectives of "culture contact" studies to seek generalizations about how these might be understood and classified as "cultural entangle1nent." Still others have toyed with the idea of entanglement, but much more as a metaphor or heuristic (e.g.,

46

Colonialism in historical archaeology

Forde, 2016; Martindale, 2009; Stahl, 2002). Dietler (1998, 2010) has argued that "contact encounters" are contexts in which local or indigenous people consumed alien goods entangled within their own socially relevant demands and resistances without being subsumed within the "very different asymmetries of power" that characterize full-blown colonialism (Dietler, 2010: 53, 74). Stockhammer (2012, 2013) has also advocated for entangle1nent to replace the political and biological layers embedded in the ter1n "hybridity," which it may well do if we can clarify its role as 1nodel, metaphor, or method and its relationship, if any, with Hodder's (2012) theory of entanglement.

Persistence and survivance As the above interpretive models have revealed their weakness, some historical archaeologists have turned to other ways of fra1ning the indigenous aspects of colonialism. These framing devices, perhaps more so than theoretical positions per se, have e1nphasized indigenous com1nunities and practices, their connections between past and present, and an attempt at perspective from their vantage point. Others will certainly follow, but two in play right now are ideas of persistence and survivance. Persistence can hardly be claimed as a theory, but when linked with practice theory, indigenous perspectives, or other strong theoretical bases, it prompts a fairly radical shift in the way questions are framed. As developed briefly in Silliman (2009), it requires understanding, first and foremost, what it is that makes us ask if something or someone has changed or stayed the same. When considering colonial contexts and the endurance of indigenous communities and cultural practices, this shifts the burden fro1n asking whether an obviously still-extant community has changed and by how much - given the deeply embedded notions of acculturation that linger and the double standards applied to the colonizers and colonized - to asking how it has persisted so that we can even pose questions about changes or continuities. As others have developed in parallel, such as Mrozowski et al. (2009) and especially Panich (2013), archaeologies of persistence permit us to see changes within continuities and continuities within changes (Ferris, 2009; Pezzarossi, 2019), to situate colonialism in longer-term indigenous histories (Sallum and Noelli, 2020; Scheiber and Mitchell, 2010; Schneider, 2016), and to make archaeology more relevant to descendant co1nmunities. It is not without dangers, though, if persistence is conflated solely with continuity (in the continuity-change dichotomy) rather than resolving it and if it mistakenly co1nes to represent something essentialized and timeless. More so than persistence, survivance has a uniquely indigenous take on ways of understanding persistence and survival within colonialism, as its name subtly captures. Although first associated with French social theorist, Jacques Derrida, the concept of survivance has 1nade its way into cultural studies, literature, and ultimately anthropology through Gerald Vizenor (e.g., 1998, 2008), an Anishinaabe scholar and writer in Native American studies and literature. To him, survivance "is more than survival, more than endurance or mere response . . . [S]urvivance is an active repudiation of dominance, tragedy, and victimry" (Vizenor, 1998: 15). Despite being victimized by colonial processes and people, many indigenous peoples do not want their existence defined solely or primarily in terms of victimhood and certainly not always in reference to being colonized. Depending on how it is used, survivance permits hybridity, as a blending of new and old cultural materialities without invoking problematic ideas of cultural authenticity, but it can also negate hybridity, when hybridity implies a simple mixture of earlier for1ns to produce so1nething not particularly new, but not really old either. So1ne historical archaeologies of

47

Stephen W. Silliman

colonialism have availed the1nselves to what survivance might offer (Atalay, 2006; Colwell and Montgo1nery, 2019; Gonzalez et al., 2018; Handsman, 2018; Lightfoot and Gonzalez, 2018; Sheptak, 2019; Silliman, 2014), but it has not yet gained much traction.

Ethnogenesis A final key concept used in the historical archaeologies of colonialis1n is ethnogenesis, or the appearance of new ethnic identities through transformation. Although nineteenthcentury in its lexical origins and having its initial anthropology grounding in the 1960s and 1970s with some influential work in the 1990s (Hill, 1996), ethnogenesis has relatively new applications in historical archaeology fro1n only the mid-2000s (Cipolla, 2012a, 2012b, 2013; Hill, 2013; Stojanowski, 2005, 2010; Voss, 2005, 2008a, 2015; Weik, 2009, 2014; Weisman, 2007; see also Hu, 2013). As one of its key proponents, Voss has used ethnogenesis in a sophisticated and clear way to discuss the rise of Californios as a social and political identity in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century colonial California (Voss, 2005, 2008a), while simultaneously keeping a critical eye on its tendency to creep into interpretations as a presumed "resolver" of contradictions in change/ continuity or as a co1nponent of cultural persistence (Voss, 2015). She rightly critiques its use in such a broad form and calls for its application only in cases that have ethnic identity as a key factor and that have instances of transformation of ethnic identities (Voss, 2015: 658). Ethnogenesis is not about any and all identities in play, nor does it encapsulate all mechanisms of identity change. In fact, ethnogenesis is often not about persistence at all, but often intentional rupture. In addition and as a result, ethnogenesis is not restricted to cases of the colonized or the subaltern, as she clearly articulates in her own archaeological studies (Voss, 2005, 2008a) and in her atte1npts to draw attention to the politics of power that can be part of ethnogenesis (Voss, 2015). Because ethnogenesis does not apply to any and all cases, it has been (and must be) used in moderation, but one case where it has been deployed to great effect is the for1nation and dispersal of the Brothertown Indians from New England in the late eighteenth century, to New York, and ultimately to Wisconsin (Cipolla, 2012a, 2013). Individuals from several communities in southern New England left their Native homelands in what became a successful collective attempt to reinvent the1nselves in a new place as Christian Indians with a new ethnic identity, distinct from the co1nmunities they left behind. Through careful analysis of toponyms and ethnony1ns in textual documents, grave markers, and material culture Cipolla (2012a, 2012b, 2013) has artfully crafted an archaeological interpretation of ethnogenesis for this Native American com1nunity in the context of colonialism.

Summary This synopsis of ter1ninological and conceptual devices in historical archaeologies of colonialis1n leads to three conclusions about the state of our interpretive models. First, these various terms do not simply 1nean the sa1ne thing as "cultural mixing," "culture change," or other more generic conditions. If used in this way, then they function merely as descriptors for which we already have less technical language - and should be avoided other than as basic 1netaphors in archaeological writing. Second, these terms are not synony1ns. They may refer to similar processes or situations at times, but in other contexts they e1nphasize different strategies, tactics, outco1nes, or parameters of the histories they have been summoned to explain. In addition, these ter1ns have distinct lineages, points of reference, and theoretical

48

Colonialism in historical archaeology

anchors that matter. Switching between the1n in an interpretation - so1netimes hybridity, sometimes entanglement, sometimes cultural fusion - muddies rather than clarifies (e.g., Ewen, 2000). Third, to function as analytical frames or interpretive models, these terms need to be defined and specified, not casually interjected. If someone wants to use hybridity or entangle1nent, then they need to clearly articulate which hybridity (postcolonial, actornetwork, biological, linguistic) or which entanglement (cultural, colonial, Hodder's thingtheory) they mean, so that readers can assess the potentials and problems with the particular interpretation. Archaeologists may also want to distinguish why they choose, for instance, hybridity over persistence, ethnogenesis over creolization, survivance over resistance. This narrows the interpretive field and brings a clarity often lacking in historical archaeologies of colonialism.

Gaps and bridges The review thus far should reveal that historical archaeologies of colonialis1n are alive and well and that many theoretical and analytical advances have been 1nade. Any perusal of paper abstracts from the Society for Historical Archaeology or even the Society for A1nerican Archaeology annual meetings over the last 15 years would further demonstrate the growth industry of such studies, especially those that emphasize the effects of colonialis1n on indigenous people and the ways that "the colonized" endured those effects and, in many cases, survived them. However, the close of two decades of the twenty-first century leaves us with so1ne gaps to address and bridges to build in our studies and representations of colonialism.

Connections to the African Diaspora One of the 1nore glaring gaps in the archaeology of colonialism concerns the one between those who study Native Americans and other indigenous peoples in the context of colonialism (the traditional reahn of "culture contact" studies) and those who study the African Diaspora. Traditionally these have been seen as two different kinds of historical experiences and populations - one about the colonization and re1noval of indigenous people on their ho1ne territories, the other about the enslavement and diaspora of African people across the Atlantic - but this division has profound proble1ns when the boundaries are barricaded. Certainly, major differences exist and should not be minimized or ignored; for example, theories and experiences of African Diaspora and indigeneity have unique and distinct origins and spins. However, a key point of intersection between these two fields of inquiry is colonialism itself Colonialism is the process that installs Europeans on Native A1nerican, First Nations, Australian Aboriginal, and Pacific Islander territories, but it is also the process that installs Europeans in Africa as well. Colonialis1n (and capitalis1n) is the machine driving the extraction of resources and human beings in all places where Europeans settled, although with different emphases and te1npos depending on the colonizers and time period. So, why do historical archaeologists frequently talk about colonialis1n as a two-sided proverbial coin, often read as colonizer/European versus colonized/indigenous? What about a third side, an equally fundamental component element often ignored in colonial studies: African Diasporic peoples who were colonized in Africa and ripped from their ho1nes by colonizers and who then involuntarily served as part of the colonizing European front as captive laborers in indigenous territories? Where do they fit into "colonial studies"? How are their cultural contributions observable when historical archaeologists cling to the classic

49

Stephen W. Silliman

Native-European dichotomy for classifying and interpreting objects, architecture, and practices? How do we see intersections and potentially shared experiences? One way to dissolve some of these divisions it to look at labor, a feature shared by many indigenous and African Diasporic peoples in the context of colonialism. Admittedly, the latter's experience of that much more frequently involved chattel slavery as its defining element, but the former also experienced forms of captivity, servitude, and enslavement, often alongside African-descended peoples. Historical archaeologists need to spend more time finding these points of intersections in the context of labor, especially since labor has often not served as the analytical focus of most historical archaeologists working on Native A1nerican issues and those intersections with African Diaspora issues (but see Hayes, 2013; Kulstad-Gonzalez, 2015; Lightfoot, 2004; Rodriguez-Alegria et al., 2015; Silliman, 2004, 2006, 2010; Voss, 2008b). Similarly, indigenous and African Diasporic peoples all share another key experience drawn directly fro1n, and feeding back into, colonialis1n: White supremacy and racism. These are both historical realities and salient features of today's world against which the descendants of those colonial processes continue to struggle. African Diaspora archaeologists have made substantive contributions to questions of race and racis1n (e.g., Battle-Baptiste, 2011; Matthews and McGovern, 2015), and 1nore conversations about these shared links could benefit historical archaeology focused on colonialism more broadly (Battle-Baptiste, 2010). And if these conversations help historical archaeology to confront White supremacy and racism, then we are making the right kind of intellectual and political progress. Perhaps more conspicuously, indigenous people and those descended from the African Diaspora did not simply share experiences of colonialism and labor in some larger abstract analytical or comparative sense. They often shared them together in families, as couples, across communities, and more poignantly, within the same individuals who had dual ancestry. Only until recently have these kinds of intersections been overlooked in the archaeologies of colonialis1n, but the tide is shifting, thanks largely to work in indigenous studies and history (e.g., Tayac, 2009). For example, New England and the larger Northeast offer a context full of complex Native A1nerican and African/ African-A1nerican intersections that are starting to be more fully examined and acknowledged for their cultural, political, and racial salience (Handsman, 2015; Hayes, 2013; Mancini, 2015). Beyond these cases in the worlds of emancipation are those that involve marronage,particularly in Brazil (e.g., Funari 2006) and the Eastern United States (Sayers, 2014; Weik, 2009). Of course, co1nplicating the story of these shared experiences in more equitable contexts, such as interethnic households on Indian land in New England, are those situations in the American South with Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw elites owning, buying, and selling Black slaves (e.g., Krautha1ner, 2013; Naylor, 2008). All of these will require the attention of more historical archaeologists - both those who work on "colonialism" and those who work on "African Diaspora" - in the future. The stakes for history, culture, identity, race, and citizenship are too high to do otherwise. Expanding the scope of colonialism and its agents and reagents to include African Diaspora populations will also put necessary stress on concepts and ter1ns that historical archaeologists mobilize for the study of indigenous people. How many of these apply to African Diaspora groups? Ethnogenesis has certainly been used, especially for maroon co1nmunities of escaped slaves and their relationships with Native American groups (Weik, 2009, 2014), but it is not a particularly common frame of reference. What about survivance or persistence? How would archaeologists articulate those si1nilarly or differently in a group struggling against European/White domination, or should they, in the case of a specifically indigenous 50

Colonialism in historical archaeology

concept like survivance? Where would entangle1nent come into play? Certainly, there would no cases of "cultural entangle1nent" because the African Diaspora results directly from colonialis1n and outright enslave1nent, but what about other kinds of entanglements 1naterial, familial, economic? Or does this word seem a little too neutral for Black experiences in White settler colonies? "Culture contact" has certainly never been a useful ter1n beyond the original acculturation work of Melville Herskovits (see discussion in Silliman, 2005: 64-65). Finally, what about hybridity, developed specifically in the postcolonial contexts of India and now applied worldwide? Thus far, scholars have chosen to use creolization over hybridity for African Diaspora contexts, largely because creolization has roots in AfroCaribbean and Latin American contexts. Equally so, some of the theoretical and geographical expansions of creolization, or what 1night be over-applications and universalizations, throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s have raised alar1ns.

Colonialism and colonists It is safe to say that the self-defined historical archaeology of colonialism has maintained its pri1nary focus on indigenous people enduring colonial processes, people, objects, foods, and disease. In large part, this is due to the long history of "culture contact," "contact period," and "protohistory" interests among those archaeologists who sought a brand of historical archaeology to further the study of indigenous populations beyond the reahns of traditional "prehistory." However, that offers neither a complete picture of colonialis1n nor even a full acknowledg1nent of the research foci of historical archaeologists. The consideration of African Diaspora issues provides one such amelioration of the topic, but so does an emphasis on the colonizer aspects of overall colonial projects. I return again to the bracket discussed earlier. Most of the ter1ns and concepts summarized above, and the concerns with their baggage and meaning, have been applied almost exclusively to interpret the colonized, subaltern, and indigenous. This happens for a good reason, as we need to work critically through these concepts and ter1ns given the significance of results and representational politics for those co1nmunities living in, and often still reeling from, colonial worlds. Those on the receiving end of colonialism have spent centuries being 1nisrepresented, and those misrepresentations have served larger state policies of oppression and uncritical public sentiment. Yet, where are similar debates on concept to examine those perpetuating and benefitting from colonialism? My qualification of "almost exclusively" above was to indicate that one scholar and one concept in the above list - Voss and ethnogenesis - do stand out as being an equally welldeveloped engagement with the colonizer side. Voss' (2008a) research on "Spanish" colonialis1n in California has worked hard to reveal that the colonizers themselves were rarely the homogenous group that their name conveys. She has also demonstrated that one of those particular ter1ns, ethnogenesis, can be used to interpret the processes and politics of those on the side of power, not just accentuate the experiences of those without 1nuch of it. This is not to say that other historical archaeologists have not engaged the colonizer side of colonialism. Deagan's (1983, 1998) work in St. Augustine paved the way for historical archaeologists to understand the implantation, adaptation, and development of Spanish colonial identities and ways of life in La Florida and the Caribbean. Interestingly, she emphasized transculturation and mestizaje - both suitable and context-specific interpretive models for the formation of New World colonial identities in multiethnic households, especially those that would form the basis of many Latin American nations and their citizenry. However, neither have provided successful models for understanding the colonized overall, as evidenced by 51

Stephen W. Silliman

their relative scarcity in the literature since 2000. Trigg's research in the Spanish colonial American Southwest has also advanced our understanding of colonizers by focusing on economic relationships, mestizaje, and somewhat of an inverse of the concepts outlined above that is, looking at the relationships between colonist and local Native peoples to understand the colonists, not the other way around (Trigg, 2004, 2005). And still others have retained creolization to refer to a particular process, often na1ned as such at the time, that 1narked certain cultural and ethnic shifts among colonizers who produced offspring with indigenous people and as a result negotiated new social roles and classes (e.g., Crowell, 2011; Deagan, 1983). However, none of the other terms and concepts summarized above have offered much purchase on the colonizer. Some of these non-applications and limitations are appropriate ones since 1nany of the concepts really do apply only to those on certain sides of a colonial relationship. Applying these ideas universally would deflate what have become robust understandings of indigenous and subaltern agency, autono1ny, struggle, and persistence. For exa1nple, applying Bhabha's hybridity, persistence, or (even worse) Vizenor's survivance to those in colonial power would undermine interpretive clarity and quite important political projects. Yet, I have to wonder about those models that have drifted from so1ne of their representational and political anchors, such as the neutralized and casual versions critiqued above. Why would some models of hybridity - specifically the ones not drawn from postcolonial theory - or entanglements not work on colonizers? A key problem is that we have not examined carefully enough why indigenous/subaltern/colonized peoples need "special" theory to isolate or elevate them, while colonizers seem to need little theory since they comprise the default, the standard subjects of neutralized social theory divorced from its colonial contexts. In this light, much remains to be done to ensure colonialism includes the study of colonizers. I do not advocate balancing interpretations between the various "sides" when we know that more attention is still required to offset centuries of European and White privilege, but I do recommend that historical archaeologists working in most places of the world, regardless of the subject population, ensure that colonialism is on their analytical radar. Few have pursued the idea of "colonial projects" advocated by Thomas (1994), the considerations of vantage point offered by Stahl (2014), the emphasis on institutionality and govern1nentality that connect those subject to colonial rule and those practicing it (e.g., Richard, 2012), and the innovative kind of landscape and com1nunity co-production argued by Wernke (2013). Similarly, not enough have taken to heart the argument made by Johnson (2006) that we need to pay as 1nuch attention to colonialism in the metropoles from which it originates as we do to the frontiers. Colonialism is not just something that happens to people on frontiers, nor are its materials, peoples, and legacies set in motion - and the structural privilege they bring - inconsequential.

Colonialism in comparison A final area for so1ne consideration is the growing trend toward comparative colonialis1n (Cipolla and Hayes, 2015; Given, 2004; Gosden, 2004; Horning, 2007, 2015; Lightfoot, 2012; Lightfoot et al., 2013; Stein, 2005). How do the colonialism(s) of historical archaeology co1npare to earlier and more localized colonialis1ns and imperialis1ns of the Mediterranean, the Basin of Mexico, the Andes, and other places? Should we study these with the same ter1ns and points of reference, or do they require more historically and contextually situated understandings? What is the relationship between imperialis1n and colonialism for 52

Colonialism in historical archaeology

historical archaeology and for archaeology 1nore broadly (see the consideration of indigenous imperialism in the A1nerican Southwest by Montgomery [2019])? Acco1npanying the growth of comparative colonial studies has been a growing e1nphasis on long-term indigenous histories (Oland et al., 2012; Scheiber and Mitchell, 2010; Schmidt and Mrozowski, 2014). As I have noted elsewhere (Silliman, 2015a), a tension remains between these two 1nodes of co1nparative colonialism and long-term indigenous histories, despite many points of overlap in topics and actual archaeologists themselves. In contrast to the lateral analytics of co1nparative studies that take colonialism as the critical shared element between geographical, cultural, and historical locales, approaches to long-term indigenous history offer distinctly longitudinal and diachronic investigations, ones designed to elucidate trajectories rather than 1nodels. The ideal resolution or integration has yet to be realized in the balance of theoretical and political issues at stake. Historical archaeologists will be working through this in the years to come.

Conclusions Historical archaeologies of colonialism have been changing notably since the dawn of the new millennium. The pace of conceptual introductions has increased, as has the corresponding ter1ninological debates surrounding them. This has produced a challenging ambiguity in research and interpretation, but it bespeaks the complexity of the past and our efforts to represent it appropriately today. Admittedly, so1ne historical archaeologists - especially students - find the barrage of terms unsettling, which can lead some to eschew them altogether and take a supposedly "atheoretical," commonsense stance to their work or can put the1n in a bind of feeling like many terms are now off limits. This situation should not be incapacitating, though. The reality is that historical archaeologists just need to be clear in what they are saying and why, and this should be ground shared by the 1nost scientific and the most humanist of archaeologists. Even in this extensive review of the historical archaeologies of colonialism, I had to leave out even more terms and concepts that deserve attention and care in their use. For example, more and 1nore historical archaeologists, especially those in African Diaspora studies, are drawing on the insights of intersectionality to exa1nine lived experiences and identities in the past. This perspective acknowledges that subjects and subjectivities are not composed of simply one social vector first and foremost, but several at the same time covering the realms of gender, race, class, sexuality, and others (see also Voss and Casella, 2012). This kind of perspective will be required of many historical archaeologists working on colonialis1n. In addition, I did not touch on capitalism, even though it "haunts" (sensu Orser, 1996) 1nany of the topics covered and has wrought ferocious economic, social, and environ1nental impacts across the globe. Capitalism is a co1nplex concept that deserves careful attention, which it garners in other chapters in this volume (see also Croucher and Weiss, 2011 b; Johnson, 1996). I simply mention here that the relationships between colonialism and capitalis1n are still up for debate, as historical archaeologists try to understand the spatial and te1nporal scope of both, their mutual constituency or their moments of intersection and amplification, and their tendencies toward totalizing narratives (Croucher and Weiss, 2011a; Horning, 2015; Pezzarossi, 2015). Because capitalism, especially its later manifestations, is a key feature of the last 500 years of global colonialism, it will continue to garner attention

53

Stephen W. Silliman

for the ways that this distinguishes the colonialism of historical archaeology's focus fro1n other imperial formations. Finally, the future success of historical archaeologies of colonialis1n will surely be judged by how well they engage, listen to, and incorporate the voices and participation of those who have been on that "enduring" side of colonialism. Many of the archaeologists cited above are doing just that. Regardless of preferred appellation, these indigenous, communityengaged, collaborative, community-based, and/ or critical archaeologies will remain crucial. They not only pry open categories and cast new light on old topics, but they have the potential to upend some ontological understandings of material, experience, and history in or beyond the context of colonialism. Historical archaeologists will need to continue expanding the diversity of their ranks as well to include scholars and voices of color, especially indigenous ones who can join in researching, reframing, and critiquing colonialism.

References cited Alexander, Rani T. 1998. "Afterword: Toward an Archaeological Theory of Culture Contact." In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction,Culture Change, and Archaeology,ed. James G. Cusick, 476-95. Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Atalay, Sonya. 2006. "No Sense of the Struggle: Creating a Context for Survivance at the NMAI." American Indian Quarterly30(3-4): 597-618. Battle-Baptiste, Whitney. 2010. "An Archaeologist Finds Her Voice: A Commentary on Colonial and Postcolonial Identities." In Handbook efPostcolonialArchaeology,eds Jane Lydon and Uzma Z. Rizvi, 387-91. London: Taylor & Francis. Battle-Baptiste, Whitney. 2011. Black Feminist Archaeology.London: Routledge. Beaudoin, Matthew A. 2013. "A Hybrid Identity in a Pluralistic Nineteenth-Century Colonial Context." HistoricalArchaeology47 (2): 45-63. Beaudoin, Matthew A. 2014. "The Process of Hybridization among the Labrador Metis." In Rethinking Colonial Pasts Through Archaeology,eds Neal Ferris, Rodney Harrison, and Michael Wilcox, 103-20. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bhabha, Homi. 1985. "Signs Taken for Wonders: Questions of Ambivalence and Authority under a Tree Outside Delhi, May 1817." CriticalInquiry 12: 144-65. Byrd, Jodi A. 2016. "Still Waiting for the 'Post' to Arrive: Elizabeth Cook-Lynn and the Imponderables of American Indian Postcoloniality." Wicazo Sa Review Spring: 75-89. Card, Jeb J. 2013a. "Italianate Pipil Potters: Mesoamerican Transformation of Renaissance Material Culture in Early Spanish Colonial San Salvador." In The ArchaeologyefHybrid Material Culture, ed. Jeb J. Card, 100-30. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 39. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. Card, Jeb J., ed. 2013b. The ArchaeologyefHybrid Material Culture. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 39. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. Cipolla, Craig. 2012a. "Peopling the Place, Placing the People: An Archaeology of Brothertown Discourse." Ethnohistory59 (1): 51-78. Cipolla, Craig N. 2012b. "Textual Artifacts, Artifactual Texts: An Historical Archaeology of Brothertown Writing." Historical Archaeology 46 (2): 91-109. Cipolla, Craig N. 2013a. BecomingBrothertown:Native American Ethnogenesisand Endurancein the Modern World. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Cipolla, Craig N., ed. 2013b. Foreign Objects:Rethinking Indigenous Consumption in American Archaeology. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Cipolla, Craig N. and Katherine H. Hayes, eds. 2015. Rethinking Colonialism: ComparativeArchaeological Approaches.Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Colwell, Chip and Lindsay Montgomery. 2019. Objects of Survivance:A Material History ef the American Indian SchoolExperience.Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. Croucher, Sarah I{. and Lindsay Weiss. 201 la. "The Archaeology of Capitalism in Colonial Contexts, an Introduction: Provincializing Historical Archaeology." In The Archaeologyef Capitalism in Colonial Contexts, eds Sarah K. Croucher and Lindsay Weiss, 1-37. New York: Springer.

54

Colonialism in historical archaeology

Croucher, Sarah I{. and Lindsay Weiss, eds. 2011 b. The Archaeologyof Capitalism in Colonial Contexts. New York: Springer. Crowell, Aron L. 2011. "Ethnicity and Periphery: The Archaeology of Identity in Russian America." In The Archaeologyof Capitalism in Colonial Contexts, eds Sarah I{. Croucher and Lindsay Weiss, 85-104. New York: Springer. Cusick, James G. 1998a. "Historiography of Acculturation: An Evaluation of Concepts and Their Application in Archaeology." In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change and Archaeology,ed. James Cusick, 23-43. Center for Archaeological Investigations. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. Cusick, James G., ed. 1998b. Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. Center for Archaeological Investigations. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. Cusick, James G. 2000. "Creolization and the Borderlands." HistoricalArchaeology34 (3): 46-55. Dawdy, Shannon Lee. 2000. "Understanding Cultural Change Through the Vernacular: Creolization in Louisiana." HistoricalArchaeology34 (3): 107-23. Deagan, Kathleen. 1983. Spanish St. Augustine: The Archaeology ef a Colonial Creole Community. New York: Academic Press. Deagan, Kathleen. 1998. "Transculturation and Spanish American Ethnogenesis: The Archaeological Legacy of the Quincentenary." In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, ed. James G. Cusick, 23-43. Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Deagan, Kathleen. 2003. ""Colonial Origins and Colonial Transformations in Spanish America." HistoricalArchaeology37 (4): 3-13. Dietler, Michael. 1998. "Consumption, Agency, and Cultural Entanglement: Theoretical Implications of a Mediterranean Colonial Encounter." In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology,ed. James G. Cusick, 288-315. Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Dietler, Michael. 2010. Archaeologiesof Colonialism: Consumption, Entanglement, and Violence in Ancient MediterraneanFrance.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ewen, Charles R. 2000. "From Colonist to Creole: Archaeological Patterns of Spanish Colonization in the New World." HistoricalArchaeology34 (3): 36-45. Ferguson, Leland G. 1992. Uncommon Ground: Archaeologyand Early African America, 1650-1800. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Ferris, Neal. 2009. The Archaeologyef Native-Lived Colonialism: Challenging History in the Great Lakes. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Forde, Jamie E. 2016. "Volcanic Glass and Iron Nails: Networks of Exchange and Material Entanglements at Late Prehispanic and Early Colonial Achiutla, Oaxaca, Mexico." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology21: 485-511. Funari, Pedro Paulo A. 2006. "Conquistadors, Plantations, and Quilombo: Latin America in Historical Archaeological Context." In HistoricalArchaeology,eds Martin Hall and Stephen W. Silliman, 209-29. Malden, MA and London: Blackwell. Funari, Pedro Paulo A. and Maria Ximena Senatore, eds. 2015. ArchaeologyefCulture Contact and Colonialism in Spanish and PortugueseAmerica. New York: Springer. Given, Michael. 2004. The Archaeologyefthe Colonized. London: Routledge. Gonzalez, Sara L., Ian Kretzler, and Briece Edwards. 2018. "Imagining Indigenous and Archaeological Futures: Building Capacity with the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde." Archaeologies14(1): 85-114. Gosden, Chris. 2004. Archaeologyand Colonialism: Cultural Contactfrom 5000 BC to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haber, Alejandro. 2016. "Decolonizing Archaeological Thought in South America." Annual Review ef Anthropology45: 469-85. Hall, Martin. 2000. Archaeologyand the Modern World: Colonial Transcriptsin South Africa and the Chesapeake. London: Routledge Press. Handsman, Russell. 2015. "Race-Based Differences and Historical Archaeologies in Indian New England." In The Archaeology of Race in the Northeast, eds Christopher N. Matthews and Allison Manfra McGovern, 232-51. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Handsman, Russell G. 2018. "Survivance Strategies and the Materialities of Mashantucket Pequot Labor in the Later Eighteenth Century." HistoricalArchaeology52: 51-69.

55

Stephen W. Silliman

Harrison, Rodney. 2002. "Australia's Iron Age: Aboriginal Post-Contact Metal Artefacts from Old Lamboo Station, Southeast Kimberley, WA." AustralasianHistoricalArchaeology20: 67-76. Harrison, Rodney. 2004. Shared Landscapes:ArchaeologiesefAttachment and the PastoralIndustry in New South Wales. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. Harrison-Buck, Eleanor, Ellen Spensley Moriarty, and Patricia A. McAnany. 2013. "Classic Maya Ceramic Hybridity in the Sibun Valley of Belize." In The Archaeologyof Hybrid Material Culture, ed. Jeb J. Card, 185-207. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 39. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. Hayes, Katherine. 2013. Slavery BeforeRace: Europeans,Africans and Indians at Long Island's SylvesterManor Plantation, 1651-18 8 4. New York: New York University Press. Hill, Jonathan D., ed. 1996. History, Power, and Identity: Ethnogenesis in the Americas, 1492-1992. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Hill, Jonathan D. 2013. "Long-Term Patterns of Ethnogenesis in Indigenous Amazonia." In The Archaeology efHybrid Material Culture, ed. Jeb J. Card, 165-206. Occasional Paper No. 39. Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Hodder, Ian. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeologyef the Relationships Between Humans and Things. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Horning, Audrey. 2007. "Cultures of Contact, Cultures in Conflict?: Identity Construction, Colonialist Discourse, and the Ethics of Archaeological Practice in Northern Ireland." StanfordJournal of Archaeology5: 107-33. Horning, Audrey. 2014. "Clothing and Colonialism: The Dungiven Costume and the Fashioning of Early Modern Identities." Journal of SocialArchaeology14 (3): 296-318. Horning, Audrey. 2015. "Comparative Colonialism: Scales of Analysis and Contemporary Resonances." In Rethinking Colonialism: Comparative Archaeological Approaches, eds Craig Cipolla and Katharine Hayes, 234-46. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Hu, Di. 2013. "Approaches to the Archaeology ofEthnogenesis: Past and Emergent Perspectives." JourResearch21: 371-402. nal efArchaeological Johnson, Matthew. 1996. An Archaeologyof Capitalism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Johnson, Matthew. 2006. "The Tide Reversed: Prospects and Potentials for a Postcolonial Archaeology of Europe." In HistoricalArchaeology, eds Martin Hall and Stephen W. Silliman, 313-31. Oxford: Blackwell. Jordan, Kurt A. 2009. "Colonies, Colonialism, and Cultural Entanglement: The Archaeology of Postcolumbian Intercultural Relations." In International Handbook ef Historical Archaeology, eds Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, 31-59. New York: Springer. Jordan, Kurt A. 2010. "Not just 'One Site Against the World': Seneca Iroquois Intercommunity Connections and Autonomy, 1550-1779." In Across a Great Divide: Continuity and Change in Native North American Societies, 1400-1900, eds Laura L. Scheiber and Mark D. Mitchell, 79-106. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Jordan, Kurt A. 2014. "Pruning Colonialism: Vantage Point, Local Political Economy, and Cultural Entanglement in the Archaeology of Post-1415 Indigenous Peoples." In Rethinking Colonial Pasts Through Archaeology, eds Neal Ferris, Rodney Harrison, and Michael Wilcox, 103-20. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krauthamer, Barbara. 2013. Black Slaves, Indian Masters:Slavery, Emancipation,and Citizenship in the Native American South. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Kulstad-Gonzalez, Pauline Martha. 2015. "Striking It Rich in the Americas' First Boom Town: Economic Activity at Concepcion de la Vega (Hispaniola) 1495-1564." In Archaeologyef Culture Contact and Colonialism in Spanish and Portuguese America, eds Pedro Paulo A. Funari and Maria Ximena Senatore, 313-37. New York: Springer. Law Pezzarossi, Heather. 2014. "Assembling Indigeneity: Rethinking Innovation, Tradition and Indigenous Materiality in a 19th-Century Native Toolkit." Journal of Social Archaeology 14 (3): 340-60. Law Pezzarossi, Heather and Russell N. Sheptak, eds. 2019. IndigenousPersistencein the Colonized Americas: Material and DocumentaryPerspectiveson Entanglement. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Liebmann, Matthew. 2008. "Postcolonial Cultural Affiliation: Essentialism, Hybridity, and NAGPRA." In Archaeology and the PostcolonialCritique, eds Matthew Liebmann and Uzma Z. Rizvi, 73-90. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

56

Colonialism in historical archaeology

Liebmann, Matthew. 2010. "The Best of Times, the Worst of Times: Pueblo Resistance and Accommodation during the Spanish Reconquistaof New Mexico." In Enduring Conquests:Rethinking the Archaeology efResistanceto Spanish Colonialismin the Americas, eds Matthew Liebmann and Melissa Murphy, 199-221. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press. Liebmann, Matthew. 2012. Revolt: An Archaeological History efPueblo Resistanceand Revitalization in Seventeenth Century New Mexico. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Liebmann, Matthew. 2015. "The Mickey Mouse Kachina and Other 'Double Objects': Hybridity in the Material Culture of Colonial Encounters." Journal of SocialArchaeology15 (3): 319-41. Liebmann, Matthew and Melissa S. Murphy, eds. 2010. Enduring Conquests: Rethinking the Archaeologyef Resistanceto Spanish Colonialismin the Americas.Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press. Liebmann, Matthew and Uzma Rizvi, eds. 2008. Archaeologyand the PostcolonialCritique. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Lightfoot, Kent G. 1995. "Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology." AmericanAntiquity 60: 199-217. Lightfoot, I{ent G. 2004. Indians, Missionaries,and Merchants:The Legacy efColonial Encounterson the California Frontiers.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lightfoot, Kent G. 2012. "Lost in Transition: A Retrospective." In Decolonizing Indigenous Histories: Exploring "Prehistoric/Colonial"Transitions in Archaeology,eds Siobhan M. Hart, Maxine Oland, and Liam Frink, 282-98. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Lightfoot, Kent G. and Sara Gonzalez. 2018. "The Study of Sustained Colonialism: An Example from the I{ashaya Pomo Homeland in Northern California." AmericanAntiquity 83 (3): 427-43. Lightfoot, Kent G. and Antoinette Martinez. 1995. "Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective." Annual Review efAnthropology24: 471-92. Lightfoot, Kent G., Antoinette Martinez, and Ann M. Schiff. 1998. "Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeological Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California." AmericanAntiquity 63: 199-222. Lightfoot, Kent G., Lee M. Panich, Tsim D. Schneider, Sara L. Gonzalez, Matthew A. Russell, Darren Modzelewski, Theresa Molino, and Elliot H. Blair. 2013. "The Study of Indigenous Political Economies and Colonialism in Native California: Implications for Contemporary Tribal Groups and Federal Recognition." AmericanAntiquity 78 (1): 89-104. Loren, Diana DiPaolo. 2008. In Contact: Bodies and Spacesin the Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-CenturyEastern Woodlands.Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield. Loren, Diana DiPaolo. 2004. "Creolization in the French and Spanish Colonies." In North American Archaeology, eds Timothy R. Pauketat and Diana DiPaolo Loren, 297-318. London: Blackwell Publishing. Loren, Diana DiPaolo. 2013. "Considering Mimicry and Hybridity in Early Colonial New England: Health, Sin and the Body 'Behung with Beatles'." Archaeological Reviewfrom Cambridge28 (1): 151-68. Loren, Diana DiPaolo. 2015. "Seeing Hybridity in the Anthropology Museum: Practices of Longing and Fetishization." Journal efSocialArchaeology15 (3): 299-318. Lydon, Jane and Uzma Z. Rizvi, eds. 2010. Handbook ef PostcolonialArchaeology. London: Taylor & Francis. Lyons, Claire L. and John K. Papadopolous, eds. 2002. The Archaeologyef Colonialism.Los Angeles, CA: Getty Research Institute. Mancini, Jason. 2015. '"In Contempt and Oblivion': Censuses, Ethnogeography, and Hidden Indian Histories in Eighteenth-Century Southern New England." Ethnohistory 62 (1): 61-94. Martindale, Andrew. 2009. "Entanglement and Tinkering: Structural History in the Archaeology of the Northern Tsimshian." Journal efSocialArchaeology9 (1): 59-91. Matthews, Christopher N. and Allison Manfra McGovern, eds. 2015. The ArchaeologyefRace in the Northeast. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. McAnany, Patricia A. and Linda A. Brown. 2016. "Perceptions of the Past with Tz'utujil Ontologies and Yucatec Hybridities." Antiquity 90 (350): 487-503. Montgomery, Lindsay M. 2019. "Nomadic Economics: The Logic and Logistics of Comanche Imperialism in New Mexico." Journal of SocialArchaeology19(3): 333-55. Mont6n-Subias, Sandra and Maria Cruz Berrocal, eds. 2016. ArchaeologiesefEarly Modern Spanish Colonialism. New York: Springer. Moussette, Marcel. 2003. "An Encounter in the Baroque Age: French and Amerindians in North America." HistoricalArchaeology37 (4): 29-39.

57

Stephen W. Silliman

Mrozowski, Stephen, Holly Herbster, David Brown, and Katherine L. Priddy. 2009. "Magunkaquog Materiality, Federal Recognition, and the Search for a Deeper History." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology13 (4): 430-63. Mrozowski, Stephen A. 2010. "Creole Materialities: Archaeological Explorations of Hybridized Realities on a North American Plantation." Journal efHistoricalSociology23 (1): 16-39. Mrozowski, Stephen A., D. Rae Gould, and Heather Law Pezzarossi. 2015. "Rethinking Colonialism: Indigenous Innovation and Colonial Inevitability." In Rethinking Colonialism: ComparativeArchaeologicalApproaches,eds Craig N. Cipolla and Katherine Howlett Hayes, 121-42. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Mullins, Paul and Robert Paynter. 2000. "Representing Colonizers: An Archaeology of Creolization, Ethnogenesis, and Indigenous Material Culture among the Haida." Historical Archaeology 34 (3): 73-84. Murray, Tim, ed. 2004. The Archaeologyof Contact in Settler Societies.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Naylor, Celia E. 2008. African Cherokees in Indian Territory:From Chattel to Citizens. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Oland, Maxine, Siobhan M. Hart, and Liam Frink, eds. 2012. Decolonizing IndigenousHistories:Exploring "Prehistoric/Colonial"Transitionsin Archaeology.Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Orser, Charles E., Jr. 1996. A HistoricalArchaeologyof the Modern World. New York: Plenum Press. Orser, Charles E., Jr. 2010. "Twenty-First-Century Historical Archaeology." Journal ef Archaeological Research18: 111-50. Palmie, Stephan. 2006. "Creolization and Its Discontents." Annual Review efAnthropology35: 433-56. Panich, Lee M. 2013. "Archaeologies of Persistence: Reconsidering the Legacies of Colonialism in Native North America." AmericanAntiquity 78: 105-22. Panich, Lee M., and Tsim D. Schneider, eds. 2014. IndigenousLandscapesand Spanish Missions: New Perspectivesfrom Archaeologyand Ethnohistory.Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Pappa, Eleftheria. 2013. "Postcolonial Baggage at the End of the Road: How to Put the Genie Back into Reviewfrom Cambridge28 (1): 29-50. Its Bottle and Where to Go from There." Archaeological Paynter, Robert and Randall H. McGuire. 1991. "Archaeology of Inequality: Material Culture, Domination, and Resistance." In Archaeologyef Inequality, eds Randall H. McGuire and Robert Paynter, 1-27. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Pezzarossi, Guido. 2014. "Camouflaging Consumption and Colonial Mimicry: The Materiality of an Eighteenth and Nineteenth-Century Nipmuc Household." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology 18: 146-74. Pezzarossi, Guido. 2015. "Tribute, Antimarkets, and Consumption: An Archaeology of Capitalist Effects in Colonial Guatemala." In Archaeologyef Culture Contact and Colonialism in Spanish and Portuguese America, eds Pedro Paulo A. Funari and Maria Ximena Senatore, 79-102. New York: Springer. Pezzarossi, Guido. 2019. "From Cacao to Sugar: Long-Term Maya Economic Entanglement in Colonial Guatemala." In IndigenousPersistencein the Colonized Americas:Material and DocumentaryPerspectiveson Entanglement, eds Heather Law Pezzarossi and Russell N. Sheptak, 57-76. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Richard, Frani;ois G. 2012. "Hesitant Geographies of Power: The Materiality of Colonial Rule in the Siin (Senegal), 1850-1960." Journal efSocialArchaeology13 (1): 54-79. Richard, Frani;ois G. 2014. "Thinking through 'Vernacular Cosmopolitanisms:' Historical Archaeology in Senegal and the Material Contours of the African Atlantic." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology 17: 40-71. Rodriguez-Alegria, Enrique, Franz Scaramelli, and Ana Maria Navas Mendez. 2015. "Technological Transformations: Adaptationist, Relativist, and Economic Models in Mexico and Venezuela." In Archaeology of Culture Contact and Colonialism in Spanish and PortugueseAmerica, eds Pedro Paulo A. Funari and Maria Ximena Senatore, 53-77. New York: Springer. Rubertone, Patricia E. 2000. "The Historical Archaeology of Native Americans." Annual Review of Anthropology29: 452-46. Sallum, Marianne and Francisco Silva Noelli. 2020. "An Archaeology of Colonialism and the Persistence of Women Potters' Practices in Brazil: From Tupiniquim to Paulistaware." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology,online 9 January 2020. Sayers, Daniel 0. 2014. A Desolate Placefor a Defiant People: The Archeologyof Maroons, IndigenousAmericans, and Enslaved Laborersin the Great Dismal Swamp. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

58

Colonialism in historical archaeology

Scheiber, Laura L. and Mark D. Mitchell, eds. 2010. Across a Great Divide: Continuity and Change in Native North American Societies, 1400-1900. Amerind Studies in Archaeology. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Schmidt, Peter and Stephen A. Mrozowski, eds. 2014. The Death of Prehistory.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schneider, Tsim. 2016. "Placing Refuge and the Archaeology of Indigenous Hinterlands in Colonial California." AmericanAntiquity 80(4): 695-713. Schrire, Carmel. 1995. Digging Through Darkness: Chroniclesof an Archaeologist.Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. Sheptak, Russell N., Rosemary A. Joyce, and Kira Blaisdell-Sloan. 2010. "Pragmatic Choices, Colonial Lives: Resistance, Ambivalence, and Appropriation in Northern Honduras." In Enduring Conquests: Rethinking the Archaeologyof Resistance to Spanish Colonialism in the Americas, eds Matthew Liebmann and Melissa Murphy, 149-72. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press. Sheptak, Russell N. 2019. "Moving Masca: Persistent Indigenous Communities in Spanish Colonial Honduras." In Indigenous Persistencein the Colonized Americas:Material and DocumentaryPerspectiveson Entanglement, eds Heather Law Pezzarossi and Russell N. Sheptak, 19-38. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Silliman, Stephen W. 2004. Lost Laborersin Colonial California: Native Americans and the Archaeologyef Rancho Petaluma. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Silliman, Stephen W. 2005. "Culture Contact or Colonialism? Challenges in the Archaeology of Native North America." AmericanAntiquity 70 (1): 55-74. Silliman, Stephen W. 2006. "Struggling with Labor, Working on Identities." In HistoricalArchaeology,eds Martin Hall and Stephen W. Silliman, 147-66. Malden, MA and London: Blackwell Publishing. Silliman, Stephen W. 2009. "Change and Continuity, Practice and Memory: Native American Persistence in Colonial New England." AmericanAntiquity 7 4 (2): 211- 30. Silliman, Stephen W. 2010. "Indigenous Traces in Colonial Spaces: Archaeologies of Ambiguity, Origins, and Practice." Journal efSocialArchaeology10 (1): 28-58. Silliman, Stephen W. 2014. "Archaeologies of Survivance and Residence: Reflections on the Historical Archaeology of Indigenous People." In Rethinking Colonial Pasts throughArchaeology,eds Neal Ferris, Rodney Harrison, and Michael Wilcox, 57-75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Silliman, Stephen W. 2015a. "Comparative Colonialism and Indigenous Archaeology: Exploring the Intersections." In Rethinking Colonialism: ComparativeArchaeologicalApproaches, eds Katherine Hayes and Craig N. Cipolla, 213-33. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Silliman, Stephen W. 2015b. "A Requiem for Hybridity? The Problem with Frankensteins, Purees, and Mules." Journal of SocialArchaeology15 (3): 277-98. Silliman, Stephen W. 2016. "Disentangling the Archaeology of Colonialism and Indigeneity." In The ArchaeologyefEntanglement, eds Francesca Fernandini and Lindsay Der, 31-48. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Silva, Fabiola Andrea and Francisco Silva Noelli. 2015. "Mobility and Territorial Occupation of the Asurini do Xingu, Para, Brazil: An Archaeology of the Recent Past in the Amazon." Latin American Antiquity 26 (4): 493-511. Stahl, Ann B. 2002. "Colonial Entanglements and the Practices of Taste: An Alternative to Logocentric Approaches." AmericanAnthropologist104 (3): 827-45. Stahl, Ann B. 2014. "Vantage Points in an Archaeology of Colonialism." In Rethinking Colonial Pasts throughArchaeology,eds Neal Ferris, Rodney Harrison and Michael Wilcox, 483-99. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stein, Gil]., ed. 2005. The Archaeologyof ColonialEncounters:ComparativePerspectives.Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press. Stockhammer, Philipp W. 2012. "Conceptualizing Cultural Hybridization in Archaeology." In Conceptualizing Cultural Hybridization: A TransdisciplinaryApproach, ed. Philipp W. Stockhammer, 43-58. New York: Springer. Stockhammer, Philipp W. 2013. "From Hybridity to Entanglement, from Essentialism to Practice." ArchaeologicalReviewfrom Cambridge28 (1): 11-28. Stojanowski, Christopher M. 2005. "The Bioarchaeology of Identity in Spanish Colonial Florida: Social and Evolutionary Transformation before, during, and after Demographic Collapse." American Anthropologist 107: 417-31.

59

Stephen W. Silliman Stojanowski, Christopher M. 2010. BioarchaeologyefEthnogenesisin the Colonial Southeast. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Tayac, Gabrielle, ed. 2009. IndiVisible: African-Native American Lives in the Americas. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Thomas, Nicholas. 1991. Entangled Objects:Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialismin the Pac!fic.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thomas, Nicholas. 1994. Colonialism's Culture: Anthropology, Travel, and Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Trigg, Heather. 2004. "Food Choice and Social Identity in Early Colonial New Mexico." Journal of the Southwest 46: 223-52. Trigg, Heather. 2005. From Household to Empire: Society and Economy in Early Colonial New Mexico. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. van Dommelen, Peter. 2006. "Colonial Matters: Material Culture and Postcolonial Theory in Colonial Situations." In Handbook ef Material Culture, eds Christopher Tilley, Webb Keane, Susan Kuchler, Michael Rowlands, and Patricia Spyer, 104-23. London: Sage Publications. VanValkenburgh, Parker. 2013. "Hybridity, Creolization, Mestizaje: A Comment." ArchaeologicalReview from Cambridge28 (1): 301-22. VanValkenburgh, Parker, Sarah J. Kelloway, Karen L. Privat, Bill Sillar, and Jeffrey Quilter. 2017. "Rethinking Cultural Hybridity and Technology Transfer: SEM Microstructural Analysis of Lead Glazed Ceramics from Early Colonial Peru." Journal efArchaeologicalScience82: 17-30. Vizenor, Gerald. 1998. Fugitive Poses:Native American Indian Scenes of Absence and Presence.Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Vizenor, Gerald. 2008. "The Aesthetics of Survivance: Literary Theory and Practice." In Survivance:NarrativesefNative Presence,ed. Gerald Vizenor, 1-23. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Voss, Barbara L. 2005. "From Casta to Californio: Social Identity and the Archaeology of Culture Contact." AmericanAnthropologist107 (3): 461-74. Voss, Barbara L. 2008a. The ArchaeologyefEthnogenesis:Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Voss, Barbara L. 2008b. "Gender, Race, and Labor in the Archaeology of the Spanish Colonial Americas." CurrentAnthropology49 (5): 861-93. Voss, Barbara L. 2015. "What's New? Rethinking Ethnogenesis in the Archaeology of Colonialism." AmericanAntiquity 89 (4): 655-70. Voss, Barbara L., and Eleanor Conlin Casella, eds. 2012. The Archaeologyof Colonialism:Intimate Encounters and Sexual Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weik, Terrence M. 2009. "The Role of Ethnogenesis and Organization in the Development of African-Native American Settlements: An African Seminole Model." InternationalJournal of Historical Archaeology13: 206-38. Weik, Terrence M. 2014. "The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis." Annual Review ef Anthropology 43: 291-305. Weisman, Brent R. 2007. "Nativism, Resistance, and Ethnogenesis of the Florida Seminole Indian Identity." HistoricalArchaeology41 (4): 198-212. Wernke, Steven A. 2007. "Negotiating Community and Landscape in the Peruvian Andes: A Trans-Conquest View." AmericanAnthropologist109 (1): 130-52. Wernke, Steven A. 2010. "Convergences: Producing Early Colonial Hybridity at a doctrina in Highland Peru." In Enduring Conquests:Rethinking the ArchaeologyefResistanceto Spanish Colonialismin the Americas, eds Matthew Liebmann and Melissa Murphy, 77-10. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research. Wernke, Steven A. 2013. NegotiatedSettlements:Andean Communities and Landscapesunder Inka and Spanish Colonialism.Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

60

4

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE NEW ONTOLOGIES Some experiences in Brazil Vinicius Melquiades and Bruno S. Ranzani da Silva Translatedfrom the original in Portuguese by Marcia de La Torre Mariano

Introduction Nowadays there seems to be a common movement in several areas of knowledge and sciences which has led to ontological turns. In the human sciences, archaeology, anthropology, history and philosophy are some of the1n, and in the exact sciences, we can cite 1nathematics and physics. There is obviously a large variety of paths, as well as approaches and perspectives that accompany these movements through these different areas. Even in historic archaeology, the aspect of archaeology which will be the articulator of the reflections developed here, they appear with different names and in equally distinctive for1ns. In establishing that the debate will occur around historical archaeology and its relations with the new ontologies, we deal with the historiographic approaches, such as history seen from the bottom, 1nicrohistory and long-term history. Archaeological approaches, such as documentary, archaeology of the present, gender, landscape, symmetrical, public and the management of archaeological heritage, not to 1nention archaeology as a social action, will allow us to reflect upon new ontologies in historical archaeology in a general way, and also in Brazil, 1nore specifically. The case studies are from researches developed within the scope of research centers and Brazilian post-graduate programs, and are fuel for the final discussion, allowing us to contribute to the contemporary debates in these fields and to report archaeological research experiences in Brazil dealing directly with alternative ontologies. It is important to emphasize that this is not a bibliographical survey in historical archaeology research in Brazil, nor a record of Brazilian historic archaeology, which already exists (cf Funari et al. 2006; Lima 1993; Symanski 2009; Symanski et al. 2014). We will remain limited to papers dealing directly with the cases related to our own authorship. In the humanities, anthropology is certainly the most experienced field in dealing with alternative ontologies, due to the ethnology that has been emphasizing that the ontology or 1nodern cosmovision (or any other name) vastly influences, when it does not determine, the 1nodern Western ways of life. The concept of ontology adopted by us is closer to what Bruno Latour (2012) called "modes of existence," which in our perspective uses 61

Melquiades and Ranzani da Silva

a metaphysical critique to cosmology or modern ontology in order to redistribute capacities and agencies between different beings, humans and non-humans, in an open network of actors. While approaching the "Archaeologies of Ontology," Benjamin Alberti (2017) begins with "ontology as a theory of reality or from the being exists implicitly in all practical and theoretical archaeology" (ibid: 01), also meaning that ontologies may involve a range of studies interested in developing new metaphysics to archaeology. Also, according to Alberti, "if 'ontology', in conventional philosophical ter1ns was always in singular - 'a' reality - then the most unsettling move of the 'ontological turn' has been to pluralize it. Arguably, this pluralization was a turning point, coming from both the metaphysical archaeologists and those influenced by anthropology. The move is meant to liberate us from the modern Cartesian substance ontology" (ibid: 02).

Historical archaeology: some experiences in Brazil In Brazil, historical archaeology can be understood today as an archaeology made in spacetime contexts whose materialities refer to the presence of the European colonizer, regardless of whether it is best defined as post-colonial archaeology, fro1n the modern world, capitalism or any other term, the relationship between archaeology and history seems to be pri1nordial and allows us to question its frontiers. The relation with alterity, for example, seems connected to archaeology, history and anthropology and it is increasingly present in studies around these fields. "Historical archaeology in Brazil is a field that began its development during the 1960s, initially without any difference, whether in goals or in methods, fro1n the prehistoric archaeology" (Symanski et al. 2014: 998), as well as being associated mainly with the search of locations described in historical documents by naturalist travelers, missionaries and administrators, among others (cf Lima 1993). During the 1980s, archaeology in South America started to develop as an independent field of knowledge associated with its potential in the "construction of alternative discussions about the past," giving rise to multiple perceptions and interpretations about the histories, opposite or different from the "official history" and the hegemonic narratives (Sy1nanski et al. 2014: 998-999, our translation). These perceptions and alternative interpretations are, in turn, related to the 1nultiplication of counterhegemonic discourses which have co1ne to light and gained strength with the end of the 1nilitary dictatorship in Latin America, in general, and in Brazil specifically (Funari 1994; Symanski et al. 2014). During this 1nove1nent, a series of perspectives and reflections around Brazilian historical archaeology have been established since the 1990s, involving a large "diversity of influences, including procedural, symbolic, post-structuralist and critical approaches" (Symanski et al. 2014: 1000). Symanski et al. (2014: 998) argue that in recent decades, Brazilian/South American historical archaeologists have been moving away fro1n the strong influence in North American historical archaeology, and concerning themselves with the construction of a new identity for the field, with a basis in the historical and cultural particularities of the South American countries. Debating around the possibilities of creating "something that we can call Brazilian archaeology" (Neves 2015), Ulpiano Bezerra de Meneses (2015) and Eduardo Goes Neves (2015) clarify that it is not about the search for and allocation of criteria identities, according to the nationalist archaeologies from past centuries, but the perception of tendencies,

62

Historical archaeology and new ontologies

convergences and potentialities which may compose the raw material common to the identities of Brazilian archaeology. In search of communication and convergence between the studies, the author indicates that it might be prudent to abandon certain naturalized perceptions that refer us to ontologies or to modern Western ways of existence, such as the separation between "myth (explanatory narrative) and history (is this controlled knowledge? Or its own historical dynamics?)" (Meneses 2015: 21-22), between history and literature, subject and object, among so many others that are triggered fro1n the mo1nent we break one of these dichotomies. When we encourage the interplay of Brazilian archaeology with the studies of material culture, to which we agree, Meneses points out that the latter have, as presuppositions, "the existence of a material, physical, corporeal and sensorial dimension, indispensable to the institution" and recalls that "today the English ter1n 'entangle1nent' is commonly used to categorize the relationship between humans and material objects, its systems, institutions, environments, contexts, situations and circuits" (Meneses 2015: 22). From our perceptions, the concept of entangle1nent approaches and transfor1ns into articulations between beings (hu1nans and non-hu1nans) which 1nake up the collective, cosmos or co1nmon world, according to Bruno Latour (2004, 2007). We opted for this approach, since it allows a direct interaction with alternative ontologies and the inclusive potential of the "mixtures" (Latour 2004: 116). Thus, it is important to "know whether the propositions which compose it are more, or better, articulated" (Latour 2004: 407), not only those already instituted or institutionalized, but also those that are externalized or alternative. Within the perspectives from the mapping of 1nodes of existence, the author proposes protecting "the ontological pluralism against annihilation by its subject/ object syste1n to be a funda1nental part of the objectives of the sciences" (Latour 2012: 22). In this movement of questioning related to ontologies and hegemonic modes of existence that has been followed in recent times, archaeology is "accused of ignoring the materiality of the 1naterial culture and only now begins to concern itself with such negligence. Returning to the e1npirical - especially to the artifacts and their environ1nent - does not mean fetishizing" (Meneses 2015: 23). On the contrary, to take the agency and/or agentivity of the artifacts seriously, "it is necessary to stop considering them exclusively as documents (which, of course, they will never cease to be), but to also treat the1n as agents immersed in social play" (ibid.). Thus, we are calling alternative ontologies those that fall outside the scope of modern cosmologies, for exa1nple, those that demonstrate the existence of or start from the capacity 1 of action (agentivity ) of human things and people, which until recently was not considered to be at the same level that the "object" occupies in the modern Western 1nodes of existence. In the midst of the proposition that all beings (humans and non-humans) are simultaneously subjects and objects, we must think about the relationship between the researching subject (researcher) and research object (archaeological 1naterials and sites, human collective), as well as the traditional segregation between science and politics, the former being responsible for representing the objects (things, events, natural events) and the latter, the (human) subjects (Latour 2007). Among the possible paths to the historical archaeology based on other ontologies, there is an approximation through microhistory. It is interesting to remember the potential of archaeology to work through these little forgotten things from everyday life (Beaudry 2006, 2008; Deetz 1996; Hodder 2000). 63

Melquiades and Ranzani da Silva

It is through this path that Mary Beaudry proposes a microhistoric approach to archaeology, searching daily lives that are not an e1nulation of social structure, but events in themselves. The contextualization of material traces, historical documents (criminal records, inventories, almanacs, manuals, notary documents, wills, diaries), ethnographic and oral histories allows us to find the agency of individuals in history (Beaudry, Cook and Mrzowski 1996). The article by Loredana Ribeiro on Sinha Maria Candida and Padre Domingos (Ribeiro 2012) is a pioneer work about microhistory in Brazilian historic archaeology. The author, heavily influenced by Mary Beaudry, ai1ns directly at this precise filter that is allowed by archaeological and documentary context. Working at the archaeological site of Fazenda do Morro, Mariana/MG, while undertaking work originated from an environment licensing process, Loredana points out that the first question concerns the possible association between the change in behavior of crockery usage on the farm, observed in the archaeological evidence, and the girl who, at the sa1ne moment, appears semi-anonymous in the writings about the Fragas [Fraga family, owner of the farm]. (Ribeiro 2012: 134) By approaching the case study of gender concepts, understood as relations of power and domination that are established between males and females, and agency, co1nprehended as an individual sphere capable of acting concretely within the social systems, Loredana enters the analytical universe of microhistory, in order to sustain her thesis of generification and agency of objects and people in the past. The work of Camila Agostini with Sao Sebastiao pottery makers (2010) is another exa1nple of microhistorical archaeology, resulting in a fascinating scenario of women, this time, from an i1npoverished context, in their networks of solidarity, commerce and productive process. For exa1nple, while speaking about the pottery makers she mentions Maria Jacinta and little Catharina. Too young to be a proper laborer, Maria included Catharina for reasons which, according to Camila, co1nbine the 1noment of learning a trade and solidarity a1nong women. When discussing the "whos" in the pottery production of Sao Sebastiao, with names, kinship, professions and destinations (though only a few), the author gives vent to the weaves between real characters and their things. Even if the pans are in the "what" category, instead of "who," they are very particular, as compound and ethnically identified organisms, circulating between Sao Sebastiao (the producing center) and Rio de Janeiro (the 1nain consu1ner). Within the proposed scenarios of ontological turn, these papers do not represent a subjectification of the objects, but place the1n as participants of a1nple networks of social and cultural relations, far fro1n being a restricted sample of a cognitive structure, or even beyond contextual signification. As the proposition for our dialogue, the microhistoric archaeology and the studies of material culture are a fruitful repository for studying the relational co1nplexities of lives that atte1npt to build themselves in the 1neanderings of a strong, oppressive, conflicting, expansive and run-down global fra1nework. It is through this panorama of research that we intend to contribute, also with our experiences of historic archaeologies in Brazil.

64

Historical archaeology and new ontologies

Cases and chances

Bureaucracy and witchcraft This section is an unpublished part of the doctoral thesis of one of our authors, Silva (2017), whose objective was to analyze the relationship between local and archaeological knowledge in the construction of information about the past, using an ethnographic 1nethodology, based on the concepts of public archaeology and archaeological heritage. As a case study, the archaeological site "Charqueada Santa Barbara" was selected, a fragment of a for1ner charque (dried 1neat) ranch of the same name in Pelotas/RS. Thus, the research was associated with the project "O Pampa Negro: Arqueologia da escravidao na regiao meridional do Rio Grande do Sul (1780-1888)," coordinated by Lucio Menezes Ferreira. The most i1nportant result of this project was the production of narratives about the recent history of the dwellers still living on the archaeological site (descendants from a Portuguese fa1nily). To that end, I (Silva) analyzed their everyday materialities, which were 1nore representative of their stories and also of more critical stories about Pelotas' past. Among so 1nany the1nes identified by ethnography, I chose to discuss the history of women in the Chacara/Charqueada. For the purposes of this chapter, I will begin from a single subject: Dona Maria, her witches and gnomes. Dona Maria, a black wo1nan nearing 60 years old, came to live in the Chacara as the wife of Mr. Marcel 18 years ago. Having graduated in Nursing and Social Service, she had learned much about the history of the Chacara/Charqueada over the years, both by her husband's family and by her own experience. The land and the house where the descendants of the Portuguese live were owned by the Simoes Lopes family, one of the richest and most well known in the city. They pay rent since their Portuguese grandparents leased the land (currently reduced to the house and backyard, due to urban expansion). In 2013, Suzana Simoes Lopes, owner of the property, passed away, allowing her heirs to , inherit the land. They were Susana Simoes Lopes da Costa, Luiz Eduardo Indio da Costa and Luis Felipe Indio da Costa. During one of our meetings, in 2015, Dona Maria reported a visit from a realtor and a lawyer from the fa1nily heiress, in order to provide details on a lease agreement of the land to the villagers, which would suspend the charge of a rental fee (a symbolic value of R$12.00 per family). So the contract mentioned I couldn't make improvements. I asked what those were, because "with 1ny three diplomas I missed that class and I didn't know what that was," I told hi1n. And I didn't understand why I couldn't put gravel in the yard, but replacing the door that was falling apart it's renovation, so I could. (Dona Maria {M.}, 5 February 2015) Dona Maria gave 1ne a copy of the contract, signed by the tenants (renters) but without the signatures of the landlords (legal owners of the inherited land). The clause to which she refers states: [... ] 5. The TENANTS will not be able to make improve1nents and/or extensions to the land now leased, except with previous and express consent by WRITING from the LANDLORD.

65

Melquiades and Ranzani da Silva

A few days later, I returned to Dona Maria with a paper in which I had systematized some legal clarifications on the concept of improvement. She had her grandson on her lap, just under one year old, as she looked with little interest at the paper I had given her. While I explained so1ne of the content, she lowered the contract with one hand, while holding the grandchild on her lap with the other, and asked me if "in the end, this contract means nothing, because we don't even have Indio da Costa's signatures" (M., 4 March 2015). Luiz , Eduardo Indio da Costa, was a Gaucho architect living in Rio de Janeiro, and Luis Felippe Indio da Costa, was famous for the fraud scandals of Banco Cruzeiro, of which he was a director and 1najority shareholder, as discovered in 2012. These reports, from my perspective, showed that Dona Maria has no interest in "gobetweens"; she prefers to resolve what needs to be resolved face to face. In the meeting with the lawyer and the realtor, this was made clear by her denying the contractual clauses, preferring direct clarification from the representatives of the heirs. In our meeting, she had little interest in the paperwork, for what she wanted was the word that everything would be 1nade clear. We understand this suspicion of the "document" in the com1non sense; in a country with still a fair a1nount of colonial attitudes, the deception of bureaucracy is evident both in popular experience and the a1nount of activities that need official registry in a notary office. This is co1nplemented by the ironic conduct of one of the heirs, who made a fortune from fraudulent contracts. In the context in which the docu1nent is nothing but a trap, an opportunity to get ahead while "pulling the carpet fro1n underneath you," Dona Maria prefers to deal directly with the world through action, work, sensitivity and spirituality. Daughter of Oxum, she cares for the Saints left by Mr. Rocha, the oldest resident of the Chacara, possessing a collection of little witches. Dona Maria also said she had the witches, that people were afraid of them, but that they only brought good things. She reminded 1ne of the little witches that were underneath her table, but said that she had to take the1n away because of her grandson (field diary [d.c.], 19 August 2015). The collection consists of 24 pieces; 14 are set between a gnome or a witch and a stone. 2 The witches, gnomes and stones were arranged as in Figure 4.1. According to Dona Maria, they are always kept in the sa1ne locations. "I think they want it that way" (17 May 2017). I asked her about the role of colors between the witches and she told me that colors do not alter the magic of gnomes and witches. Nor is there any clear relation between the raw 1naterials and their attributes. There are some colors with special properties, however. The transparency of stones is good for absorbing bad energies and releasing good ones. The green color indicates "the way forward," the future, and is associated with prosperity, life and childhood (d.c., 17 May 2017). A single relationship established between morphology and its meaning was the "pyramid" towards "balance." The others are associated with the rather humanizing conditions of little witches and gno1nes: the love of their "perfume" or their "happy expression," the magic from the "cauldron that possesses," or, "the impression that she/he transmits to you". I asked how she knew about witches. She said she knows witches and has an affinity with them. Witches are born with a 1nark, but they do not show it to anyone. She said that "if one is born a witch, one is also born with a sensitivity to see figures" (d.c., 19 August 2015). According to Dona Maria, there is still too 1nuch prejudice towards witches, so they do not reveal themselves to the world, they only do so to those who are close to the1n.

66

Historical archaeology and new ontologies

Figure4. 1 Pl acem ent of w itches, gnom es and sto nes. D ate: 17 M ay 20 17. Photo: Brun o S. R. da Silva.

It' s a myth th at sh e is evil. Also because sh e do es not live in luxury , she is always poorl y dressed, "lik e a b eggar. Som etim es th ese entiti es co n1-e to th ese p eopl e to test yo u. " B ecause th ere are p eopl e w ho use th em for evil. Th ey are h ere until tod ay. Wh en you h ear an agitat ed hor se on a ni ght with a full moon , you will kno w it' s h er. Th e n ext day, th e m an e is all braid ed. Mr. [hidd en] , Mr s. Z ena's fath er , saw wit ches. "Th e w itch es are h ere tod ay," she said . Th e n ext day th e hor ses' m an es we re all br aided. "And our h air too, w h en th ey w ake up braided , it was th en1-." (d.c., 17 May 201 7) H er collection of w itch es and gnom es live a life of simpli city . Th e figur es are not wash ed, to avoid removin g th eir en ergies. So th ey are left in th e rain , ove r a w hit e Pyrex dish , w ith salt. " Th e salt w ill carry away th e bad en ergies and th e sun brin gs th e good on es." Wh y w hit e Pyrex, I ask ed. "Because it' s transparent . Tran sparen cy is good for lettin g through th e bad en ergies and ab sorbin g th e good on es" (M. , 17 M ay 201 7). I ask ed h er w h at th e wit ch es we re. " It' s 11atur e, clarity. It is not bad . It h as sensitivity, it h eals," sh e clarifi ed. She also told m e th at th ey we re n eve r hu1nan b ein gs, "th ey con1-e to p eopl e." Hun1-an b ein gs do evil thin gs, but not th e w itch es. You can use a w itch for good or evil (dep endin g on th e mom ent ) - sh e cannot sp eak 1nore about it (d.c., 17 M ay 20 17). During our m eetin g, I tri ed to und erstand mor e about th e "n atur e" of w itch es. " Th ey we re n eve r hum an ," says Don a M aria. Th ey are natur e th at can " reach " peopl e. "Jo an of Ar c, for exa1nple. She w as burn ed for b ein g a w itch , but sh e w as not a w itch . It was a p erson w ho h ad vision s, w ho saw thin gs th at oth ers did not see, but sh e was not a w itch " (M. , 17 M ay 2017 ). I asked h er , th en , about th e im ages sh e had. Ho w we re th ey m ade? Ar e th ey w itch es?

67

Melquiades and Ranzani da Silva

The images "have no shape. They are made by enlightened people, the hand. Witches are more air, gnomes 1nore land (they are found in waterfalls, trees, stones). As I said, witches were never people, they are nature." And here, she makes an analogy with the Orixas of African-born religions: at the time of making the figures, they are enlightened people who receive instructions from the Orixas on how they want it to be made (d.c., 17 May 2017). This approach, however, does not define the issue. Since Orixas are "sanctified" entities, they were kings, queens, warriors, sorcerers, sorceresses, fathers, 1nothers, brothers and sisters. They were flesh and blood. Witches were not. I straightforwardly asked about the figures. "What are the little witches?" "Every little witch is an energy," was her answer. Again, what was supposed to be a question about 1natter, came back as energy. I thought it was best to face this conflict between my inquisitive scientific tendencies and the everyday sensibility. But this discrepancy, this gap between the image proposed by the judges in the interrogations and the one offered by the accused, allows us to reach a stratum of genuinely popular beliefs, then deformed, annulled by the overlapping of the cultured layout (Ginzburg 2010: 8-9). While attempting to fra1ne witches in a category apprehensible between "human" and "natural," "immaterial," and "material," I was, precisely, losing sight of: 1) a way of existence that is not defined by known borders and 2) how one can exist in this way. That is, the little witches are not included in any single category of existence - they are, simultaneously, energy, matter, nature and humanity. As we talked, I cataloged each of the little witches, gnomes and their stones, taking pictures with a scale in centimeters, inquiring about the raw materials used in making them, the reasons for their color, their origin, their function. While photographing the artifact # DSC02546 - Pyramid, she told 1ne that it is balance and patience. "Don't you think?" she asks me. "I don't know, Dona Maria. As I have told you, I am very accustomed with looking at everything through science. If I see a pyramid, I think of engineering." "That's right, balance to be built. If you don't have balance and patience, you can't study, do ya understand me?" (M., 17 May 2017). The symbolic re-qualification on which Dona Maria challenged 1ne was one of the approaches adopted in order to make me understand what she was saying. For exa1nple, when I asked about the color and the answer was undefined - it does not matter if the witch or gnome wears purple, red or green; or even still, the 1naterials from which they are 1nade. What gives them "happiness, love, luck, protection, health" is their energy and empathy, the relationship that is established during personal acquisition (purchase), or the intention of who gave the image. And certainly, the will of the witch herself, willing the prodigal artisan on how she wants to be made. In regards to the stones, Dona Maria bestows some characterizations based on its morphology, geology, color and shape. The crystal, quartz, tiger's and cat's eyes are the strongest elements for their purifying potential (crystal and quartz) and "paranor1nal" visibility (tiger's and cat's eyes). However, most stones are related to witches, gnomes and to Dona Maria herself, through affinity. It is the witches and gnomes who choose the stones. Even if removed from the altar and stored separately (as they were), the redistribution of the stones is always the same - each to their own chosen gnome/witch. Stones and i1nages can be bought or given. Even if acquired separately (stones and images), the image always chooses its stone (d.c., 17 May 2017). 68

Historical archaeology and new ontologies

The human and natural things are not only difficult to distinguish (even those "supernatural" and "supra-human," which for the humanities would be framed as "culture," "myth," or "religiosity"), but they also have agency. The stones, the figures, the people, the nature, the flesh, the before, the after, the now, the initiates, the foreigners, they all com1nunicate even witches and Orixas. When asked about what the difference would be between the witches and the Orixas, Dona Maria replied that "they are alike, but the habits and norms are different. The witches are more serious - when she goes to 1neet with the witches, her feet must be covered" (she said she could not reveal the reason), "[u]nlike the Orixas, however, since one's feet must be on the ground, in order to receive the energy." But they do not conflict. Each one requests respect and actions which are due to one another (d.c., 17 May 2017). During 1noments such as this, Dona Maria (and the witches, stones and gnomes) reveal to me their world and invite me to share their relationship. The narrative starts to develop. As I have described, the identity of the witch DSC02518 was defined at the moment of our meeting. Dona Maria did not define her, she only asked 1ne to qualify her, based on "what she revealed to 1ne." I told her she inspired 1ne with "wisdom." Without reproach, she said "so it is wisdom." She allowed 1ne to 1nake a wish and vigorously blow her hair three times, so I did (d.c., 17 May 2017).1 In the end, the knowledge about witches and gno1nes synthesizes, in my view, so1ne of the elements of the ontological turn, as discussed earlier. Cosmic and everyday action is not a monopoly of the human being. No matter what their nature, the will of nonhuman beings takes effect through relationships between themselves and humans. This dialogue generates an intrinsic value of each relationship, which is constituted by the contact and interlacing of diverse narratives between each of the participating characters. Their own stories are shared and woven in the narratives: who chose who and how they were manifested, what was said, where in that gathering. Thus an important element, this lack of framing of the subjects among the Cartesian categories that we possess (nature, human, matter, spirit) does not mean that they are delocalized. The stones, the witches, the gnomes, 1nyself, Dona Maria - we are all here, there, in this plane of existence, in another, visible or not, but we are. Knowing ourselves in our particular instances and locations, we do not run from ourselves. We flee from prejudice, from framing, from bureaucracy, fro1n those who use witches for evil. Those who we flee from, on the contrary, do not want to show the1nselves, but seek to hide behind dubious contracts, lawyers and realtors. As 1nuch as there are mysteries and respect due to each participant agent, differences that define the ways of each of them, there is no impediment to their reunion and mutual recognition. The beings request respect and passage, but do not cancel each other out. The principle of recognition and self-knowledge stems fro1n dialogue and a very important element for witches: freedo1n. They make Dona Maria scratch her body when she's fiddling with them, especially her head. Dona Maria had her hair tied, and they do not like tied hair. "They like freedom, nothing tied, nothing tight" (d.c., 17 May 2017). I asked Dona Maria if there was any difference between men and women in witchcraft. Her answer was that "men are warlocks and women are witches," simple. However, she told me the role bishops and priests of the Catholic Church played in the degradation of the image of witches. "They were witches and they performed witchcraft for evil. They lay with 1nen and women and then cast spells for them to become defor1ned. For that reason 69

Melquiades and Ranzani da Silva

they hunted witches." "To control them?" I said. "Not to control the1n, but to cover up their own deeds" (M., 17 May 2017). The feminist movement has resumed the conde1nnation of witchcraft as a legal and cultural premise constituted over the years by the Catholic Church and Western patriarchy in order to control, domesticate and punish the freedo1n of the fe1nale body (Campos 2010; Rocha et al. 2016; Zordan 2005). Every expression of power by the women resulted in punishment. Fabricated within Christianity, the image of the witches was translated into devouring, evil women who murdered newborn children, ate human flesh, participated in orgies, transformed into animals, had intimate relations with de1nons, and gave their souls to the devil. An analysis of the vast literature on the subject shows that the characterization of the witch that existed during the Inquisition, resounds to the present day, being one of the 1nost wicked elements produced by the patriarchal society of the West (Zordan 2005: 332). The history of wo1nen' s rights and freedom in the West is a separate issue, one that I cannot describe. But it is important to reme1nber that the image of the witch, still present in daily life as a pejorative (if not dangerous) image of women, is a point that resurfaces in the conte1nporary feminist movement as a topic for discussion about women's freedom regarding their conduct and their bodies. On the condition of witches in this context, Paola Zordan concludes: It is a distinct, de1nonic, archaic and becoming thought. As a conceptual character for this line of thought, unlike the one established by the History of Philosophy, the witch brings knowledge of the "other," marked by indistinction. To know its reality, the concrete skin of the things marked in the passage of life, it 1neans to extract the fiery specter of an agonizing body. A complete body, which shines in the uniqueness of the flesh, beyond the organism, extended to the body of the Earth and that of the surrounding sky. Swallower body-world. (Zordan 2005: 340) This is exactly what I came across in Dona Maria's little witches. Complete singular organis1ns, with knowledge that flees to the history of philosophy honest than the paper bandits.

bodies, from and is more

The case (chance) of the ventaneira The case study presented here is part of 1ny (Melquiades) doctoral thesis 3 and refers us to the chances and circu1nstances that affect research, whether in the daily activities, methods and nomenclatures used or in the problematics and interpretations. The case (chance) described here happened in 2014, during a field stage in which I stayed in Cachoeira do Bru1nado for five days - a com1nunity of artisans who produced soapstone pottery in Minas Gerais, from which I have produced studies since 2008 - to develop a specific research activity, mapping the ruins of the old network of canals that supplied some hydraulic lathes in the hamlet. Cachoeira do Brumado (CB by abbreviation) is a district with an estimated population of 2,261 inhabitants (IBGE 2010), located approxi1nately 20 km east of Mariana/MG. In the center of the district we find the Brumado creek, which at one point forms a waterfall that gives its name to the location. The few studies that 1nention it indicate that the hamlet e1nerged in the early eighteenth century with the creation of the first chapel 70

Historical archaeologyand new ontologies

(Instituto Terra Brasilis 1999: 9). The collective 1nemory and the local narratives emphasize that the production of soapstone pottery is linked to this period and that during the first half of the eighteenth century it was already practiced in CB. At the entrance to the urban area of the district, it is possible to see blocks and preforms of stone pots on the sidewalks and in front of the garages, usually near electric workshops, which are currently quite common. The arrival of electricity, electric lathes and other 1nachinery, large 1nining co1npanies and high technology fro1n the twentieth century onward, are factors that had an impact on the realities of the location, and still drastically affect it. For example, access to raw materials in 1nost cases, today, is through the purchase of refuse from mining companies, which has a considerable impact on engagement and relationships with the stones. This "divergence" with the quarries (Melquiades 2017: 61-67) restricts, when it does not deny artisans the possibility of extracting the raw material according to their choices, knowledge and 1nodes of existence. A range of options - such as the selection of parts from the quarry with no impurities, collection in periods of time except during crescent moon and in specific months of the year, the 1naking of preforms at the foot of the quarries thereby generating less refuge in the interior of the workshops - is transformed. In general, in 1ny doctoral thesis (Melquiades 2017) some of these layouts were considered in relation to the position that the hu1nan subject occupies in and at the creative processes involved (cf Ingold 2000, 2011), besides the flows and exchanges of properties and qualities between the materials and the beings involved, which was why I chose to critically call it 1naterialities. It was also considered that technique and technology refer to a redistribution of agencies a1nong those involved (cf Latour 2002), making it possible to perceive that the distancing of ele1nents and beings (such as water and quarries, for example) is linked to the hege1nony of 1nodern ways of life and existence and acco1npanies its rise and accelerated pace of development, and progress toward the do1nination of the human over nature. The production of soapstone pots using a hydraulic lathe, in CB today, is only 1nade in one workshop, by the artisan Geraldo Teixeira (Gege), currently 68 years old, with no apprentices. Through an ethnography of Gege's production next to the study of collections, it was possible to perceive that the production of soapstone pottery was and still is a worldly and marginal craft, approaching the "banal crafts," according to the historian Jose Newton Coelho Meneses (2013) for Minas Gerais of the eighteenth century, and the "worldly objects" of Pierre Lemonnier (2012). Unlike the 1nechanical crafts and 1nanual activities cited in the historical documentation, such as blacksmiths, stonemasons, carpenters, woodworkers, among many others, no mention has yet been 1nade to the production of stone pots. In this case, the lack of information was perceived as information in itself, which merged with studies of material culture, gestures and techniques, indicating that the production of stone pots has its own dyna1nic and involves a range of experiences, knowledge and practices shared with other 1nanual activities (cf Melquiades 2017). For example, the handling of stones refers to the activities of stonemasons and bricklayers. The hydraulic lathe approaches from the woodworker's lathes, with which the wood is handled. The same is true for the brace, an "instrument of woodworkers and carpenters, which pierces" (Bluteau [1712-1728]: 816). In addition, it is necessary to consider water manage1nent, selection and preparation of the terrain and the construction of workshops (formerly the closer to the quarries, the better), and the gestures, a1nong many other factors and 71

Melquiades and Ranzani da Silva

agents. From these dynamics, which will not be specifically addressed here, it is important to note that production activities are marked by involvements and associations between beings (humans and non-humans). The constant exchange of characteristics and properties between beings points to the fact that the mixture is an ontological state prior to the purification process (Latour 2007; W ebmoor and Witmore 2008) and assists in the thesis that there is an ontological abandon1nent of these mundane objects and banal crafts that can be perceived from the materialities of the soapstone pots (Melquiades 2017). The only text found in the survey made for this research is a bulletin from the Ministry of Agriculture, Industry and Com1nerce of Rio de Janeiro, published by the German chemist Oskar von Burguer in 1927. The study was commissioned by the government at the time and was made based on the observation of the production in this sa1ne CB com1nunity (von Burguer 1927). In the ethnography there are indications of the mobility and versatility of activities around the production of stone pots, such as the statement that "he [the artisan] interrupts his industrial work during the harvest and at any other time when there is a 1nore urgent or a more profitable job" (von Burguer 1927: 520). Reinforcing the approach, we have the following passage: The sa1ne people who produce the pots, also transport them in general to the nearby market. When the maker has a sufficient number of pots in order to organize one or two loads (it is possible to fit about twenty pots of regular size on a donkey load), he loads his donkey and goes to town, where there is a friendly dealer. He sells his products there, or rather, exchanges them for other types of goods, loads his donkey with his purchases and returns to his village. (von Bu,;guer 1927: 520) The passage reinforces the idea of the informality of the craftsmanship of a pottery 1naker and the association between the pottery artisans and the tropeiros, which also appear in other studies (Melquiades 2011, 2017; von Burguer 1927). Returning to the case in July 2014 a field stage was carried out in order to map the water channels from the ruins of an old dam in the center of CB. The activities in the field involved cleaning (removal of vegetation) and registering (description, photos and drawings) of the dam's ruins and traverses over the channels for its geo-referencing via the use of a manual GPS device. The survey showed that two 1nain channels leave fro1n the da1n, continuing to border the Brumado stream. The channel on the left bank is in use by the artisan pottery 1naker Gege, and the channel on the right margin is deactivated and silted with crumbling sections. Myself and a collaborating archaeologist walked for a few hours following the traces of the old canal through sugarcane fields and other plantations on moderate slopes to the CB center. In so1ne sections, recent habitations have advanced over part of the terrain and the canal, forcing us to go around neighborhoods in order to find its traces on the other side. At the end of this sunny hike, wearing a long-sleeved shirt and hat, pants and leggings, carrying a backpack, water, machete, camera, notebooks (drawing and notes), a GPS device and all the research paraphernalia, we arrived at the ruins of a tank in the backyard of Bilu's house, a pottery artisan who I had known since 2008. Before we started any activity, we walked a few 1nore meters to the door of Bilu's house, we called him, gave him explanations and asked for permission to do the work (cleaning, photos, descriptions and drawings) while drinking a glass of cold water. He not 72

Historical archaeology and new ontologies

only gave u s p errruss1on, but also accompanied us during th e activities. As we talk ed, h e explain ed th at th e tank was a reservo ir th at delivered water to hi s fan1-ily's old mill (curr en tly used as a depot) and to hi s fath er's hy drauli c lath e. Mr. Juquinha , Bilu's fath er, was th e son of an arti san who start ed wo rking w ith ston e pots at th e age of 13 and remain ed doing so until th e age of 75, w ho passed away a few yea rs ago. Hi s hyd rauli c wo rkshop , of w hi ch only tr aces rem ain , was lo cated in th e backyard of hi s hou se. Currently, Bilu's electri cal wor kshop is und ern eath hi s residence. In th at day-to-day situ ation betwee n cleaning the ta11-kand th e co nv ersatio11s, in a quick glan ce I notic ed a seemin gly unfini sh ed ston e pot , lik e a pot pr efom1- leanin g again st th e co rn er of th e tank wa ll .. . I asked Bilu what it was and h e replied, "Don 't yo u know w hat that is? It' s my father's ventaneira." H e imm ediat ely pi ck ed up th e artifact , place d it w h ere hi s father used it and b egan expl aining. Acco rdin g to Bilu, w h en in use, th e pi ece was pla ced adjacent to th e lath e on a surf ace m ade in th e tank wa ll itself at th e wa ist leve l (see Figur e 4.2). It was used with the 1nouth of th e pot facing downwards, on the ground , and th e botton1- facing up (up sid e-down , capsized) and h as thr ee bored hol es: the first is at the bottom of the object w hi ch faces upw ard s while in use, and serves as a wa ter inl et; th e seco nd is bored on the edge of the object w hi ch, w h en i11-u se, is in co nt act with th e soil and assists as a water outlet; and th e third in th e bul ge (bod y / middl e) of th e object serves as the air outlet. Wh en operating th e ventaneira, initi ally a trough 1nade from bamboo (or anoth er reso ur ce) was pl aced in order to collect water from th e tank and tr ansport it by gravity into th e int erior of th e pi ece throu gh one of th e b ored hol es (wate r inl et). Thu s, wa ter

Figure 4.2 Picture s and drawing s of the ventaneira.Capt ur ed from M elqui ades (2017). 73

Melquiades and Ranzani da Silva

and air circulate inside the ventaneira. To activate the device, the artisan placed a stone in the water outlet, sealing it and accumulating water inside the object. With the flow closed, the volume of water increases inside the ventaneira and in turn reduces the available space for air, which is compressed and dissipated at high pressure through the air outlet bore. Adjacent to the ventaneira, in the center of the airstream, there was a small fire and/ or brazier that was fed and strengthened by high pressure air. Thus, according to Bilu, the artisan would heat the tip of the iron lever or "iron lathe" and hammer it, maintaining its 1nain working tool (see Figure 4.2). As the volume of water inside the object increases, either the system comes into balance, or it starts to overflow water through the air outlet, causing it to stop working. Before or at that mo1nent, the artisan removes the stone that closes the water outlet, releasing its flow and causing the system to return to its initial point of equilibrium. If the artisan wants to keep the 1nechanism running, they simply restart the cycle, sealing the water outlet again. It is necessary to emphasize that, whether with a hydraulic or electric lathe, the iron lathe is a non-human agent (artifact) whose participation is essential in the 1nanufacture of stone pots, working from the raw 1naterial collection through the cutting of the quarries, passing through the slabs during the preparation of the prefor1n and reaching the lathing and finishing of the pots. The constant and intense direct contact of the iron with the stone, in the cutting, the thinning or the lathing, wears the metal considerably fast, requiring constant 1naintenance of its ends. Nowadays, CB artisans set a piece of carbide at the end of the iron lever. Since carbide is a 1nass composed of rare metals and therefore extremely resistant, the usage of carbides dispenses the need for constant maintenance (Melquiades 2017: 106-109). However, in the past, such material (carbide) did not "exist" and the access to simple tools and materials was difficult, such as the lever itself and the iron from which it is 1nade. In the description of the hydraulic lathe, von Burguer emphasizes this relationship with the metal in explaining that "The two iron bits (in fact the only parts made from iron in the entire lathe) are set over two supports)" (von Burguer 1927: 527, our remark). One possible alternative is that the artisans kept this complex layout of folio, through the ventaneira,which helped with the 1naintenance of the iron lever. It is at the mo1nent between the starting point of operation (sealing of the water outlet) and the point of balance and/ or water overflow that the ventaneira makes its main presentation. Thus, it is during this interval that the artisan works with the stone, air, water, iron and fire to grind the tip of the iron which, in turn, will assist in the making of stone pans. Starting from the materialities, these relationships were comprehended through the flows and exchanges of properties and qualities a1nong the beings involved, and that in making an artifact, the artisan therefore also transfor1ns hi1nself in this relationship (Melquiades 2017). However, in addition to this significantly eventual aspect, the involve1nent or entangle1nent of human persons and things in a network or mesh of interaction also needs to be considered, insofar as it demonstrates a posture of not constructing an exclusively dialectical approach. It is also necessary to point out that the archaeology of common epistemological foundations that address the ontology of the 1n1xture draws attention to the idea that "contradictions, asymmetric bifurcations do not lead to mixtures. Mixtures and multiplicity make contradictions and bifurcations possible" (Webmoor and Witmore 2008: 60). When participating in collective relations, also in social relations, stone pots indicate that there is a raw material co1nmon to the collective and that the strength of the

74

Historical archaeologyand new ontologies

assoc1at1on between artisan and artifact can be perceived in the mixtures described from the (chance) case of the ventaneira. Thus, it is possible to raise the hypothesis that, in 1noments past, a pottery artisan worked for a master of a certain craft (since the production of pots in itself was not legally considered a mechanical craft) and at other times, moments and/ or periods, made stone pots for sale or exchange, for example. It is also possible that an artisan, master, or officer of some activity (such as a stonemason, bricklayer, lathe turner, or woodworker, for exa1nple) eventually and/ or seasonally 1nade stone pots. Learning in this context may also be linked to 1nasters of other crafts and to the fa1nily and kinship circles. In addition to this mobility (physical and social) shared by mechanical officers, and in which part of the artisans and stone pots are placed, an allusion to the concept of "mobile 1nen" is possible, evidenced by historiography (Castro 1995; Wissenbach 1998) and Brazilian historical archaeology (Agostini 2010). These would be uprooted, free and liberated e1nigrants, who were linked to the practical 1nobility of their activities and jobs (such as unskilled agricultural activities), forms of sociability, creation of bonds, (de)rooting and practical experiences of freedom (Castro 1995). Relative to the use of such a concept, Hebe Mattos de Castro (1995) constructs it by analyzing the Brazilian southeastern slaver and parts of the current states of Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. In addition, the author turns to the experiences of freedom lived by these characters with the gradual weakening and end of the slavery system, more specifically, in the second half of the nineteenth century (Castro 1995). Thus, in addition to the different temporalities and te1nporal contexts, while the mechanical crafts are placed in an urban context, the approach on "1nobile men" was constructed for the rural context. Notwithstanding the pots circulating between the two contexts, the hypothesis raised is that their dynamics were between the two inserted here, sharing characteristics of both (Melquiades 2017). It must be of note that in the case of soapstone pots, the techniques and knowledge linked to this activity are shared with other knowledge and actions, also giving rhythm and amplitude to these relationships in their 1nundane daily life. In speaking of the inconstancy and/ or seasonality of production in the early twentieth century, von Burguer (1927: 520) states that "he [the pottery artisan] interrupts his industrial work at harvest times and at any other time when there is a job more urgent or more profitable." Thus, one of the hypotheses raised is that the activities of the pottery artisans in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had particular characteristics that qualify a mobility and intermittence in the activities, besides the participation of knowledge linked to different practices that are perceptible in the 1naterialities of the pots. When the 1nastery of a craft, specialized activity, and/ or involvement with more than one activity is indicative of artisans' own experiences of freedom or mobility lived in the Brazilian slaving context, stone pots can be seen as mediators or collaborators with some of these experiences, being, in this sense, artisan stone builders of experiences of freedom. As stated by Meneses: This entire picture, in short, illuminates a reality in which 1nechanical crafts, responding to the basic needs of the social for1nation of the Minas Gerais people, would have generated 1neans of survival, as well as social and economic possibilities unique to the men and wo1nen who dedicate themselves to such crafts, elevating some to situations of social recognition, providing freedom and dignity to others, promoting the civil exercise of many, ordering and establishing foundations to sectors and to significant groups of individuals. (Meneses2013: 29, our translation) 75

Melquiades and Ranzani da Silva

The chance of the ventaneira,that is, the situation in which I found it after a long trek 1napping water channels and during the registration of a tank that at first had no connection to it, demonstrates how the daily experience of the research activities is alive and transforming, providing new perspectives and attention to agents (human and non-human) thus far disregarded or imperceptible in some realities. In so1ne cases, chance opens us up to these alternative realities that, as I have already explained, I was able to access through my encounter with a makeshift tool called "ventaneira" which was a key piece in a folio device used to grind the iron used in lathing the soapstone pots in the hydraulic workshops of Cachoeira do Brumado. In the field, on the night of the same day we found the ventaneira,a staff member com1nented during dinner: "What a gambiarra,eh! They used an adapted pan prefonn to create an alternative folio system." Since then, in presentations of conferences, lectures and classes, I have heard this word a few times while I presented the ventaneira.According to Rodrigo Bloufleur (2006), the term "gambiarra"refers to "an unconventional solution" to contextual issues and is generally associated with the making of improvised artifacts. His practice involves an alternative intervention, defined by him as a "material re-appropriation technique," which means ways of utilizing and constructing artifacts through "attitudes of differentiation, improvisation, adaptation, adjustment, transfor1nation, or adequacy" of certain materials, in many cases with the aim of solving specific and immediate needs (Bloufleur 2006: 25). On the other hand, in Brazil, "gambiarra" also refers to illegality, 1narginality, the ugly, poorly made, or unfinished thing. The most common example that co1nes in mind is clandestine electrical adaptations and extensions that divert energy fro1n public and private buildings and thus "steal" energy. These electric "gambiarras" are also called "cats" in Brazil. Regardless of the connotation, the use of the word "gambiarra"referring to the ventaneirahas become com1nonplace in my life since the 1noment Bilu introduced us to it. Removing the pejorative connotation from the ter1n, it is a good adjective used for things in constant blending and transformations which, therefore, have unique and dyna1nic properties and qualities, which cannot be compartmentalized and well perceived by the dissociation of subject/ object, nature/ culture, past/present, among all others that make up the epistemological and ontological basis of modern sciences.

Conclusions Fro1n the cases and chances presented, it see1ns the potential of Brazilian historical archaeology follows fronts that involve microhistorical archaeology and the study of 1naterial culture. The handling of the empiric as written docu1nentation and artifacts, together with the ethnographies made by archaeologists with collectives that currently relate to the 1naterialities in question, provide us, in our opinion, with the tone of the necessary interlocution between archaeology, history and anthropology. However, it see1ns to us that it may be more productive, in so1ne cases, speaking of the ontographies 4 of things. Martin Holbraad (2009) argues that the proble1n of many contemporary studies that attempt to theorize the role of these things in the lives of human persons "is that they tend to work within the analytical coordinates of the debates to which they seek to contribute, that is, debates in the Western intellectual tradition," insofar as it disregards the possibility that people whose lives are studied, "their activities and relationships, as well as the various 'things' that they involve, 1nay, in any case, exceed these coordinates" (Holbraad 2009: 431). According to the author, a way of placing the contrast between more conventional and ontographical ethnographic approaches "is by inversion: the traditional approaches use the

76

Historical archaeologyand new ontologies

'ordinary' analytic approach to account for 'extraordinary' data in 1nore com1non ter1ns, whereas ontography uses the extraordinary data to reconceptualize ordinary assu1nptions in extraordinary ways" (Holbraad 2009: 435). For gauging the ontological status of anything, it 1nust involve, first of all, discovering as much as you can about what people say about it and what they do with it, and this, as we all know, will have far-reaching ramifications which can relate to all aspects of the society in question (social, econo1nic and political arrangements, kinship, cos1nology, mythology, ritual, and so forth). (Holbraad2009: 437) Finally, Holbraad states that "it seems that an ontologically-oriented approach is capable of liberating archeology from the accusation of 'poverty of data' and various anachronistic appeals to contemporary ethnography that derive fro1n it." Many archaeologists would not be prepared to pay the price for this, which is to give up the notion that archaeology gives us an image, as complete as possible, of our past, describing and interpreting it. "I a1n not suggesting that archaeologists should give up this wonderful modernist dream," he concludes, "only that they could recognize it for what it is, a commodity of its ontological traps, and be aware that there is one [or more] alternative[s]" (Holbraad 2009: 440). Thus, we can exercise and practice respect for otherness and perhaps become more sensitive to the ontologies of things and other beings. Alternative ontologies in Brazilian historical archaeology appear in different shapes and are very much associated with the variety and specificities of contexts and research subjects. However, we perceive a movement of attention and respect to these ontologies and alternative realities, whose access occurs in different ways, in each case, and someti1nes at random. Just as the little witches described in the first case, whose "identity was 1nade at the mo1nent of the meeting" between human and non-human person, the "ventaneira" also only acquires its identity from the encounter with other beings, as de1nonstrated in the second case. In conclusion, and following the reflections of Ulpiano Bezerra and others, "it is necessary to reiterate ( ... ) that it is necessary to pay less attention outside of the continent in search of theoretical references and, conversely, to delve deeply into the local available evidences" (Meneses 2015: 23).

Acknowledgment We The the and

thank the organizers (especially Andres Zarankin) for their participation in this project. authors would like to thank Fapesp, through process n° 2013/22715-1, ad CNPq for financial support for their PhD research. We hope we have contributed to the debate are open for dialogue.

Notes 1 To learn about its definition, see Gell (1998). 2 For further details on the collection, see Silva (2017), pp. 192-196 .. 3 More specifically, it was the topic "2.1 Vida das e nas oficinas: dinamicas de elementos, matenais e materialidades," parte do "Capitulo 2 - Oficinas de seres e coletivos: tecnicas e tecnologias compartilhadas" from my doctoral thesis (Melquiades 2017) which has been reformulated for the case here presented. 4 It is worthy of note the remark we have made about "ontos=being." Thus, ontography as "writing of the being."

77

Melquiades and Ranzani da Silva

References Agostini, Camilla, 2010. Panelas e paneleiras de Sao Sebastiao: um nucleo produtor e a dinamica social e simb6lica de sua produc,:ao nos seculos XIX e XX. Vest{gios:Revista Latino Americana de Arqueologia Hist6rica,4 (2), pp. 125-146. Alberti, Benjamin, 2017. Archaeologies of ontology. Annual Review of Anthropology, Translated from Spanish by Andres Laguens, 45, pp. 163-179. Beaudry, Mary C. 2006. Stories that matter: Material lives in 19th-century Boston and Lowell, Massachusetts, USA. In Adrian Green and Roger Leech eds. Cities in the World 1500-2000: Papers given at the Conference of the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology, April 2002, London: Maney Publishing, pp. 249-268. Beaudry, Mary C. 2008. "Above vulgar economy": The intersection of historical archaeology and microhistory in writing archaeological biographies of two New England merchants. In James Brooks, Christopher DeCorse, and John Walton eds. Small Worlds: Method, Meaning, & Narrative in Microhistory. Santa Fe, NM: School of Advanced Research Press, pp. 173-198. Beaudry, Mary C., Cook, Lauren J. and Mrozowski, Stephen A., 1996. Artifacts as active voices: material culture as socials discourse. In Charles Orser Jr. ed. Images of the Recent Past: Readings in Historical Archaeology.Walnut Creek, CA, Lanham, MD, Cumnor Hill: Altamira Press, pp. 272-310. Bloufleur, Rodrigo Naumann, 2006. A Questcioda Gambiarra:formas alternativasde desenvolverartefatos e suas relafi5es com o designde produtos. Sao Paulo, MA: Universidade de Sao Paulo. Bluteau, Raphael, 1712-1728. VocabularioPortuguez & Latino, aulico,anatomico,architectonico. Coimbra. Campos, Andrea Almeida, 2010. As Bruxas retornaram . . . Cacem as Bruxas! (um argumento para o controle hist6rico da sexualidade feminina). Revista Espafo Academico[Online], 104, pp. 64-72. Available at: www.periodicos.uem.br/ ojs/index.php/EspacoAcademico/ article/view /9151 /5144 [Accessed 16 May 2017]. Castro, H.M., 1995. Das Cores do Silencio:os significadosda liberdadeno sudesteescravista- Brasil, seculoXIX. Rio de Janeiro: Arquivo Nacional. Deetz, James, 1996. In Small Things Forgotten.2nd ed. New York: Anchor Books. Funari, Pedro Paulo, 1994. South American historical archaeology. HistoricalArchaeologyin Latin America, 3, pp. 1-14. Funari, Pedro Paulo, Ferreira, E., Menezes, Lucio, 2006. A social history of Brazilian archaeology: A case study. Bulletin of the History Archaeology,16 (2), pp. 18-27. Available at: 10.5334/bha.16203. [Accessed 14 September 2018]. Gell, Alfred, 1998. Art and Agency: An AnthropologicalTheory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ginzburg, Carlo, 2010. Os Andarilhos do Bem: feitifaria e cultos agrariosnos seculosXVI e XVII. Sao Paulo, MA: Companhia das Letras. Hodder, Ian, 2000. Agency and individuals in long-term processes. In Anne-Marie Dobres and John E. Robb eds. Agency in Archaeology.London and New York: Routledge, pp. 21-33. Holbraad, M., 2009. Ontology, ethnography, archaeology: An afterword on the ontography of things. CambridgeArchaeological Journal, 19(3), 431-441. doi: 10.1017 /S0959774309000614 Ingold, Tim, 2000. The Perceptionof Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London/ New York: Routledge. ---, 2011. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledgeand Description.Abingdon: Routledge. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (IBGE), 2010. Censo Demogra.fico:Caracteristicas da populafcio e dos domicilios:resultadosdo universo.Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. Instituto Terra Brasilis de Desenvolvimento S6cio-Ambiental, 1999. Diagn6sticopreliminarda atividadeartesanal em pedra-sabaona regiciode Ouro Pretoe Mariana, MG. Belo Horizonte: Instituto Terra Brasilis. Latour, Bruno, 2002. Ethnography of a "high-tech" case: About Aramis. In P. Lemonnier ed. TechnologicalChoices: Traniformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic. London: Routledge, pp. 372-398. ---, 2004. Politicasda natureza: Comofazer cienciana democracia. Bauru: EDUSC. ---, 2007. Nuncafuimos modernos:ensayo de antropologiasimetrica.Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI. ---, 2012. Biogr~fiade uma investigafcio- a prop6sitode um livrosabremodos de existencia.Sao Paulo, MA: Editora 34 Ltd. Lemonnier, Pierre, 2012. Mundane Objects:Materiality and Non-verbal Communication.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc.

78

Historical archaeology and new ontologies

Lima, Tania Andrade, 1993. Arqueologia hist6rica no Brasil: balanc;:obibliografico (1960-1991). Anais do Museu Paulista, Nova Serie, Hist6ria e Cultura Material, 1, pp. 225-262. Meneses, de Ulpiano Bezerra, 2015. A identidade da arqueologia brasileira. Estudos Avani;ados,29 (83), pp. 19-23. Melquiades, Vinicius, 2011. Os artesiiosda pedra: arqueologiae museologiadas vasilhasde pedra-sabiioem Minas Gerais. Sao Paulo, MA: Universidade de Sao Paulo. Melquiades, Vinicius, 2017. Pedrasartesiis:materialidade,tecnologiase mobilidadesdaspane/as de pedra-sabiioem Minas Gerais.PhD. Sao Paulo, MA: Universidade de Sao Paulo. Meneses, Jose Newton Coelho, 2013. Artes fabris e ef{ciosbanais:o controledos o.ftciosmecdnicosnas Cdmaras de Liboa e das Vilas de Minas Gerais (1750-1808). Belo Horizonte: Fino trac;:o. Neves, Eduardo Goes, 2015. Existe algo que se possa chamar de "arqueologia brasileira"? Estudos Avan~ados, 29 (83), pp. 7-17. Ribeiro, Loredana M. Ricardo, 2012. Maria, parvoa exposta, Domingos, padre maculado. Ensaio de arqueologia micro-hist6rica. Vestigios: Revista Latino Americana de Arqueologia Hist6rica, 6 (2), pp. 129-180. Rocha, Laila, Belarmino, Larissa, Pessanha, Luciane, 2016. Bruxa: Uma construc;:ao hist6rica da mulher que conhece o pr6prio corpo. Anais do 4° Simp6sio Internacionalde Educa~iioe Sexualidade/2° Simp6sio Internacionalde Estudos de Genera. [Online] pp. 1-15. Vit6ria/ES. Available at: www.gepsexualidades. corn. br / resources/ anais/ 6/ 146 734 7026_ARQUIVO _txtbruxas.completo. peregrinacaofinal. pdf [Accessed 16 May 2017]. Silva, Bruno S. Ranzani da, 2017. Descobrindoa Chacaraea Charqueada,pela arqueologiapublica. [Online] PhD. Universidade de Sao Paulo. Available at: 10.11606/T.71.2017.tde-30112017-091734 [Accessed 14 September 2018]. Symanski, Luis Claudio Pereira, 2009. Arqueologia hist6rica no brasil: uma revisao dos ultimos vinte anos. In Walter Morales and Flavia Moi eds. Cenariosregionaisem arqueologiaBrasileira.Sao Paulo, MA: Annablume, pp. 279-310. Symanski, Luis Claudio Pereira and Zarankin, Andres, 2014. Brazil: Historical archaeology. In Claire Smith ed. Encyclopediaef Global Archaeology.New York: Springer, pp. 998-1005. Available at: 10.1007 /978-1-4419-0465-2_1331 [Accessed 14 September 2018]. von Burguer, 0., 1927. Estudos sobre "pedras de sabao" de Minas Geraes. Boletim do Ministerioda Agricultura, Industriae Comercio,3, pp. 519-548. Webmoor, Timothy and Witmore, Christopher, 2008. Things are us! A commentary on human/things relations under the banner of a 'social' archaeology. NorwegianArchaeologicalReview, 41 (1), pp. 53-70. Wissenbach, Maria Cristina Cortez, 1998. Sonhos efricanos,vivenciasladinas- escravoseforros no munic{piode Sao Paulo (1850-1880). Sao Paulo, MA: Ed. HICITEC. Zordan, Paola B., 2005. Bruxas: figuras de poder. Revista de Estudos Feministas [Online], 13 (2), pp. 331-341. Available at: www.scielo.br/pdf/ref/v13n2/26885.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2017].

79

5

RACE Anna S. Agbe-Davies

Historicalarchaeologyhas always been about race. Race is a rapidly expanding new topicwithin historicalarchaeology.

A logical puzzle: how can both assertions be true? The first section of this chapter offers an introduction-a prehistory of historical archaeology's encounters with the concept of race, emphasizing background developments and twentieth-century scholarship. I then proceed to consider historical archaeology's twenty-first-century engagement with three inter-related domains or themes: racial difference, racis1n, and racialization.

Prehistory As long as archaeologists have been exa1nining the contours of the modern world, they have been concerned with the social categories we so1netimes call "race." In the US, for example, J. C. Harrington wished to understand the ways in which "Indians" and "white men" influenced each other's decorative repertoires when making tobacco pipes (Harrington 19 51). Similar questions motivated Thurstan Shaw, examining pipes found an ocean away, in Nigeria (Shaw 1960). These investigations were not framed in the language of race, but built on unspoken categories of social difference, categories attributed to geographic origins and inherited identities. When archaeologists turned their gaze directly on the problem of defining and identifying these categories using archaeological data, they settled initially on the language of ethnicity. An early example of such work is Robert Schuyler's edited volume (Schuyler 1980a) ArchaeologicalPerspectiveson Ethnicity in America. The case studies drew on sites occupied by Afro-Americans and Asian Americans, two groups whose ethnic identity is popularly understood in racialized ter1ns. Yet "ethnicity" continued to be the lens through which archaeologists studied distinctive cultural patterns and the groups whose patterns were sought. Leland Ferguson's analysis of colonoware, for example, began with the idea that "It is possible that all three of the major ethnic groups in eastern North America made the wares" (Ferguson 1980: 15). An explicit aim of several contributing authors was to develop

80

Race

1nethods to identify the archaeological traces left by members of ethnic minorities, a category defined in relation to a Euro-American majority. In some of the studies, the aim was to identify distinctive artifacts or features that might signal distinctive cultural practices, indicating the presence of me1nbers of a particular group. One might examine the lists of items recom1nended for provisioning Chinese immigrant workers for objects of Chinese origin, with the idea of picking these out of archaeological asse1nblages. A correspondence between the two datasets would indicate the "surviving 1naterial content of Chinese culture" (Evans 1980: 89). On the face of it, the volu1ne's project appears to be one of identifying markers of essentialized difference. However, a closer look at the content of the chapters reveals an approach dedicated to identifying the material processes that created and reinforced these racial categories. For example, John Otto attempted to disentangle the variables in assemblages from a Sea Island plantation that could be attributed to impoverishment as opposed to legal status (which was by definition racially established), as opposed to position within a three-part social hierarchy that included owners and overseers as well as the enslaved. Other contributors sought to understand the production and 1naintenance of ethnic differences in specific contexts. Roberta Greenwood contrasted the experiences of "Chinatown" residents with those of their Chu1nash predecessors as each group navigated the social landscapes of Ventura, California, as dominated by first Spanish and then Anglo settlers (Greenwood 1980). Another collection of essays exemplifies an important development in late-twentiethcentury historical archaeology. Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in Historical Archaeologynot only dealt with race as one of several di1nensions of difference, but, in the words of editor Elizabeth M. Scott, "examine[d] the interconnectednessof gender, class, race and ethnicity" (Scott 1994: 4, emphasis in the original). One case study showed how a racebased policy of forced assimilation and labor coercion could either under1nine or, paradoxically, reinforce the traditional gender roles, household economies, and settle1nent patterns of Apache families (Bassett 1994). Another exa1nined how ideologies of race and gender shaped domestic reform movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, noting that the class and racial identities of the founding women influenced the spatial placement of organizations in a city, and that many of these organizations were segregated by race and religion (Spencer-Wood 1994). Scott acknowledged that not all studies that examine what she aptly called "the Triu1nvirate: Gender-Race-Class" do so in such an integrated fashion. Furthermore, she noted a tendency to elide, for example, the gendered dimensions of men's lives or the ways in which race shaped the cultural expressions of white people. She cites a general consensus, that at the time of writing, "neither anthropology nor history has contributed a great deal toward an understanding of racism and the cultural construction of race in the United States" (Scott 1994: 8). Such insights were an early harbinger of the kind of self-reflexive work that archaeologists engaged in as they began to tackle "race" head-on. It is perhaps significant that Scott's introduction, unlike others of its era, frames the collection's significance in the language of race rather than ethnicity.

Why "race?" The interest in ethnicity was not limited to North A1nerica, nor to archaeologies of the 1nodern era. Such is to be expected, as Schuyler notes in the introduction to Archaeological Perspectiveson Ethnicity in America, there are 1ninorities in other state societies: "it is not clear whether traditional civilizations were more or less inclined to manipulate ethnicity as an 81

Anna S. Agbe-Davies

organizational tool as co1npared to industrial societies" (Schuyler 1980b: vii). In the late twentieth century, archaeologists in other parts of the world also addressed these kinds of social difference primarily, again, in terms of "ethnicity." Sian Jones tackled ethnicity as a concept with which to examine the Romanization of Europe. She notes that "race" dominated nineteenth-century ways of thinking about human difference and locates a significant rupture with subsequent efforts to classify groups of people-and their material culture using the culture concept Gones 1997: 47), a 1node which was itself overtaken by ethnicity among late-twentieth-century social scientists. This is the ethnicity of Fredrik Earth's Ethnic Groups and Boundaries,in which he outlines the idea that ethnicity is less about claiming sa1neness than it is about marking difference (Barth 1969). Where Jones's work parts company with that of historical archaeologists is that she is concerned primarily with the analytical categories of archaeologists rather than examining ideologies of difference of the era being studied. Conversely, historical archaeologists (for better or worse) have conflated the two systems as a single conceptual problem. Yet despite Jones's early major contribution to the archaeology of ethnicity, researchers in/ of Europe do not seem to have 1nade the same turn towards an "archaeology of race" that their North American counterparts have in the twenty-first century (Gosden 2006: 1). Sarah Nelson observes the centrality of ethnicity to archaeological thought on the Korean peninsula, "Almost any archaeology or ancient history text makes clear that the purpose of archaeology in Korea is the search for Korean ethnicity, expressed as the history of the Korean people." Although the ancient people in question are well understood as a "Korean 'race'," the language used throughout Nelson's analysis is ethnicity, and that appears to be the ter1ninology used by the scholars she cites (Nelson 1996: 218). The object of study is understood as a distinct population that migrated fro1n elsewhere, bearing distinctive 1naterial culture and speaking languages that set them apart fro1n the peninsula's original inhabitants. Is, then, "race" as a subject an Americanist phenomenon, or perhaps one associated 1nainly with historical archaeology? If so, why might an archaeology of race emerge so prominently in historical archaeology? It is worth noting, that in their overview of historical archaeology in Australia, Susan Lawrence and Peter Davies review archaeological studies documenting the dispossession and resilience of Aboriginal people through processes of colonization, but do so without invoking the language of race or racis1n (Lawrence and Davies 2011). We may also ask how and why the turn from "ethnicity" to "race" was accomplished? The answers to 1nany of these questions can be found within the structure and focus of historical archaeology itself The historical archaeology of race builds on concepts in longer use within historical archaeology. For example, creolizationhas been used by many researchers investigating contexts where several distinct cultural groups co1ne together. Shannon Dawdy has speculated on the reason for the concept's resonance, arguing that it "seems to promise an escape fro1n the problematic language of 'survivals' and 'assimilation"' (Dawdy 2000). She also observes that creolization is not a single model for interaction and transformation in plural contexts, but does frequently take one of several com1non forms: linguistic (reco1nbinant elements in novel structure), cultural (distinct culture produced by colonialism), and biological (hybridity, blending in a plural population). Charles Orser argues that ethnicity serves as a stalking horse for race within historical archaeology. It fills a conceptual void left when, in the last decades of the twentieth century, social scientists began to understand race as a social rather than a biological category. Such uses of ethnicity were "safe" while race was "dangerous" (Orser 2004: 75, 111). He urges

82

Race

keyword search of Historical Archaeology 250 200 150 100 50 0

-

1967-1977

-

1978-1987

1988-1997 ■

1998-2007

2008-2017

ethnic* ■ race

Figure 5.1 Terms lik e "et hni c" and "e thni city" still outnumb er in stances of " race" in hi storical arch aeo logy's lon gest- runnin g journ al, H istoricalArchaeology. Ho weve r, the margin h as n arro wed in rece nt year s. NB: spot -c h eck ing indi cates that b efore 1988, in stan ces of "race " often referr ed to things besides th e co n cept being discu ssed h ere (for exampl e, pl ace n a1nes, h orse racin g, etc .).

hi stori cal arch aeo lo gists to draw a distin ction betwe en th e two co n cept s, reserving "e thni city " for social catego ries that are self-impo sed and " race" for social catego ries determined by n1ore powerful others (Figure 5 .1). As pr acticed in th e US , hi storical archa eolo gy ha s clo se ties w ith anthropology-a disciplin e th at is co ming to ter111 s wi th its hi stori cal rol e in defining and reinfor cin g racial categories (Harri son 1995; A1nerican Anthropolo gical Association 1998; Mulling s 2005). The middl e of th e twentieth century saw a signifi cant tr ansforn1ation son1etin1es called " th e N ew Ph ysical Anthropolo gy." Th e shift was m ark ed by a n ew e1nph asis on evo lution , th e int eraction of biolo gy and cultur e, and a turn away fron1 th e classificator y proj ects that domin ated th e disciplin e's early decades (Fu ent es 2010). In rece nt yea rs, th e Am erican Anthropolo gical Association h as und ert ake n a n1assive effort to publi cize and explain th e field 's co n clu sion th at race is an analytical co n stru ct th at tells us littl e about human biology, but a great deal about hum an society and cultur e (American Anthropolo gical Association 2011). Anoth er related reason for an expli cit focus on th e probl em s of race in hi stori cal archa eology specifically is th e turn to wa rds mor e criti cal form s of scientifi c pr actice . Ju st as archa eologists are awa re of th e rol e of objectifying scientifi c discourse in crea tin g and sustainin g racial in eq u ality (Echo-Hawk and Zimm erman 2006), th ey h ave also com e to und erstand ho w schol arship can also wor k to critique and disn1antle co nt empor ary racism (M cDa vid 2007). Th e salien ce of race for hi stori cal archaeologists is also in part a con sequ en ce of examinin g th e n1odern wo rld-an age of classification. Lik e other mod ern disciplin es, su ch as ph ysical anthropolo gy, archaeology is a produ ct of thi s impul se. Th e signifi can ce of th e drive to classify is co 1npound ed by the fact that hi stori cal archaeo lo gists are in vestigatin g th e very mon1 ent in w hi ch hum an catego n es took on greater and greater salien ce (Agb e-D avies

83

Anna S. Agbe-Davies

2015). The peculiar way in which modern societies locate the differences that exist among populations in the body-in specific characteristics of the body-has shaped both the nature of our practice and the societies we study (Brace 2005). It 1nay be that historical archaeology is special in this regard, vis-a-vis other forms of archaeology (Sterling 2015). We will turn to this inquiry again in the conclusion. For now, the focus is the overlapping set of concepts historical archaeologists utilize with respect to race. I consider them in the following sections under the headings of racial difference, racism, and racialization.

Racial difference Historical archaeology's first forays into the realm of race could be characterized as a project to understand racial difference. As with the preceding archaeologies of ethnicity, historical archaeologists considered how they might identify sites left behind by people categorizedin the past or in the present-as belonging to different racial groups. What archaeological evidence could be used to demonstrate such differences? How do such differences manifest in the archaeological record? Researchers at the African Burial Ground in New York City (La Roche and Blakey 1997), particularly the bioarchaeologists, have confronted the latter question in especially fruitful ways. The study design established by the initial research team emphasized verifying the African ancestry of those interred in the cemetery. The group that took over fro1n that team exploded this static, categorical construction of racial difference (that is to say, differences between enslaved people of African descent buried in the African Burial Ground and free white New Yorkers) to examine how differences were made in colonial New York City (Mack and Blakey 2004). Rather than taking for granted the differences between New Yorkers of African descent and others, they investigated what difference it made to individuals and populations to live and die as New Yorkers with a particular racial identity or status. For example, they considered the i1npact of racialized slavery on health, by comparing skeletal insults 1nanifested in the bodies of people born in the Americas versus those born on the African continent. Researchers also considered the impact of work regimes on the health of individuals buried there, versus that of other contemporaneous populations (Perry et al. 2006; Statistical Research 2009). The African Burial Ground's bioarchaeologists focused explicitly on the body and race's corporeal aspect. Historical archaeologists also think about how racial differences were produced through the manipulation and presentation of the body. Diana DiPaolo Loren's work on clothing and adornment shows how people have used sartorial selections to establish distinctions among "racial" groups. In colonial settings, people took clothing as a reflection of identity and status. Discontinuities between expectations and dress upset the social order. "European colonists often reacted with disdain or mistrust when Native peoples donned European-manufactured clothing that was considered to be above their station" (Loren 2010: 30). Further insights come fro1n conte1nporaneous casta paintings that offer clues as to how the clothing items that archaeologists recover may have been deployed in the production and maintenance of racial identities. Archaeologists have also found the problem of racial difference to engender new approaches to less charged forms of material culture. Lynnette Russell's work "Resist[s] the Production of Gender, Race and Class Dichoto1nies" stating that "it is virtually impossible to tease apart Kangaroo Island society into its constituent parts" (Russell 2005: 43). For exa1nple, artifacts such as chipped tools made of glass and stone are not easily explained, in

84

Race

part because the identities of their makers and users are unknown. This line of argument positions "the archaeology of race" as an archaeology in pursuit of identifiable, differentiated racial subjects, rather than archaeologies of racism or racialization. What potentially distinguishes the exploration of racial difference from the search for racially distinct patterns or markers is the understanding that difference is 1nuch more a product of racismand racialization(see below) than it is an explanation for the patterns historical archaeologists observe. Recognizing that difference is processual rather than essential 1neans that recent historical archaeologists have, following Otto's example, been 1nore diligent about trying to disentangle racial differences from their frequent correlates such as differences in wealth and power. Or, more to the point, demonstrating the extent to which the distribution of wealth and power is a product of a racist regime (see, for example, Matthews 2011; McDavid 2011).

Racism Racial difference is simultaneously a product of, and a prerequ1s1te for, racism. Here, read "racism" as unspoken concepts and patterns embedded in "structures of power that e1nerge through processes of accumulation and dispossession" (Mullings 2005). Racis1n may be dissected into several "projects" (Hill 2008: 20-21).

1. 2. 3. 4.

the production of a taxonomy of human types the assignment of individuals and groups [to types] within the taxonomy the arrangement of these types in a hierarchy the 1nove1nent of resources, both material and symbolic, fro1n the lower levels of the hierarchy to the upper levels.

Racism is not a synonym for bigotry or for beliefs about racial supenonty, but rather a system for producing and reproducing inequality. Racism was the central theme of a recent issue of World Archaeology. Archaeologists whose work 1nostly fell outside of what is normally understood as "historical archaeology" (Society for Historical Archaeology 2017) investigated what "occurs when judgements about people always proceed from their physical features of their body; when biology is given social force. Value judgements concerning people and things are linked to power; systematic judgements are often used systematically to dise1npower" (Gosden 2006: 2). I1nportantly, these studies pushed back against the common sense notion that racism is a 1nodern phenomenon. Thus, while historical archaeologists contributed to the collection, and several articles considered the ways that racis1n has warped the archaeological scholarship of (neo) colonial Africa, or Europe under Nazi do1nination, other authors explored evidence for racial prejudice in Greco-Roman antiquity and concepts of Otherness in ancient Mesopotamia. Another important expansion of the way that archaeologists have proposed to study racism is the decoupling of racis1n from anti-blackness. How does racism manifest when not addressed to the direct legacy of race-based slavery in the Americas? Of course, racis1n in the Americas did not originate with the transatlantic slave trade. It was from the outset a crucial element of settler colonialism enabling, among other things, the alienation of Native Americans fro1n their land. Case studies from New England de1nonstrate racism's fungible qualities. Early generations of settlers justified their dominance by pointing to the differences, including ones 85

Anna S. Agbe-Davies

understood as "racial," between the1nselves and their Native contemporaries. Their descendants grounded arguments against Native rights in part on the supposed lack of differences between Native people and their neighbors (McGovern 2015). Historic descriptions that erased a Native presence pointed not only to the phenotypic characteristics usually used to signal different races where that term is understood to be a biological category, but also referenced material culture. In fact, Russel Handsman 1nentions the twentieth-century strategy of so1ne Native New Englanders who "adopted ele1nents of regalia dress fro1n Western tribes as a conscious and visible representation of their 'true identity' as Indians" (Handsman 2015: 248). And yet, "colored foreigners" living among the Mashpee and the Mashantucket Pequot in the nineteenth century clearly recognized the social hierarchy that put themassigned to their group using widely held notions of heritable identity-at the bottom and excluded them from the ownership of Native resources, in this case land. Handsman reads the "respectable" artifact assemblages left behind by these "colored foreigners" as responding to that variety of racis1n, as well as to the white supre1nacy that denigrated all people of color. White supremacy, manifested in the United States' disregard for the citizenship rights of Japanese Americans during World War II, had a profound effect on the landscape and 1naterial culture of incarceration camps. This included the apparatus of confinement itself (machine guns, barbed wire) and the institutionalization of foodways, as well as the inadequate housing and sanitation. Stacey Lynn Camp says of sites like the Kooskia Internment Camp, that the logic of incarceration requires historical archaeologists to critically exa1nine the field's traditional emphasis on households, and on deposits associated with identifiable individuals or groups, in our analyses (Camp 2016: 181). Such deposits may not exist in contexts of incarceration; this very fact is significant in its own right. The preceding examples aside, "people of color" are not the only people harmed by white supre1nacy. Indeed, historical archaeologists are also interested in exploring how groups nominally accepted as "white" faced negative consequences produced by the logic of racist societies. Matthew Reilly notes that an architectural form-chattel houses-often associated with the anti-black racism of the post-Emancipation period, were widely used by socalled "poor whites" or "Redlegs." This category-of-person had also destabilized neat categories of "black" and "white" in pre-Emancipation Barbados. Interestingly, "the presence of Barbadian 'Redlegs' on the plantation landscape, and the ways in which they were discussed by island elites, illustrates the pervasiveness of racial discourse in the English colony" (Reilly 2016: 221).

Racist violence Approaches to racism 1nust also confront the evidence for racist violence in the archaeological record. Anti-Chinese sentiment inspired an arsonist to burn down the Market Street Chinatown of 1880s San Jose, California. The process of clean up and rapid recla1nation of the land for San Jose's (white-dominated) downtown 1neant that "Organic materials, including wood, leather, seeds and other plant parts, and some cloth, were remarkably well preserved." Thus, the site itself is a product of racialized violence. Furthermore, the frame of structural violence/ structural racis1n is useful for understanding the present as well. Note that it was a campaign of urban renewal that led to the redevelopment of the lots in the 1980s (for "urban renewal" as a concept, see Pattillo 2007: 7-8). The hasty initial excavation 1nay be compared with the first stage of work at the African Burial Ground, in which the aims of builders and institutions overrode the concerns of a racially construed descendant 86

Race

co1nmunity. Presumably, someone wrote off the Market Street Chinatown site as "not significant" (see Barile's study of differential applications of "significance" in Fort Bend County, Texas, below). Finally, post excavation, there were insufficient resources to co1nplete the analysis of "the most significant assemblage of Overseas Chinese artifacts in the United States" (Seiter et al. 2015: 668). Historical archaeologists are developing new modes for understanding and presenting results from studying sites that represent racialized violence. Edward Gonzalez-Tennant and Diana Gonzalez-Tennant (Gonzalez-Tennant and Gonzalez-Tennant 2016: 196-198) observe that virtual methods allow for analysis when sites remain too charged for traditional investigation. These methods also transform the archaeology of race into something that it desperately needs to be: accessible to a wide public (Farnsworth 1993). This project-bringing the archaeology of racialized violence to our broader publics-matters, because as we are painfully aware, the violence does not stay in the past, but bleeds into the present and the future (Deetz et al. 2015).

Intersectionality At the same time that archaeologists are thinking about racism in ever-broader contexts, they are also increasingly attuned to the concept of intersectionality.Most widely known from the work of Kimberle Crenshaw under the rubric of Critical Race Theory (more on this below) (Crenshaw 1989), the idea of intersectionality has even deeper roots in critical legal studies (Murray and Eastwood 1965). The central notion is that axes of inequality can intersect, multiplying the impact of structural forms such as racis1n and sexis1n. Scott addresses this idea head-on in the previously cited volume that brings together historical archaeologies of gender with those of race and class. Maria Franklin addresses intersectional concerns when she writes of the revelation that it was to consider the lives of enslaved field workers at Rich Neck plantation, not only in terms of their legal status or ethnic/racial category, but also life stage, familial status, and gender. Upon critical reflection, the important question beca1ne "How did not only race and enslavement, but gender, articulate in the lives of Black wo1nen?" (Franklin 2001: 10). One of her responses was to think though how racism and enslavement produced novel ideals of wo1nanhood among the enslaved. Another framed the archaeological evidence from sites like Rich Neck in such a way that crucial activities such as food production, household maintenance, and the socialization of children are seen as representing the efforts of women, specifically, not only generic, homogenized households. This intersectional approach, focusing on the particularity of inequality-specifically the experiences of women within the context of racialized slavery-differs from research that groups, co1npares, or otherwise juxtaposes the archaeologies of groups 1narked or marginalized along one of several dimensions. In such instances, the varieties of inequality (racis1n, sexism) appear as 1nanifestations of a multifaceted phenomenon, for example, capitalism (Mrozowski et al. 2000). Attention to the intersections can also mean treating overlapping forms of inequality as if they produce a multiplier effect. Black Feminist Archaeologylays out the importance of attending to the theoretical insights of people bearing the dual burden of anti-blackness and patriarchy. Going beyond others' calls for attention to the experiences of 1narginalized populations and actors, Whitney Battle-Baptiste de1nonstrates the significance of their theoretical and analytical perspectives for the field as a whole. The insights and experiences of racialized, gendered individuals are clearly generalizable to all of humanity in the way that the insights and experiences of the unmarked (white people, men) have always been

87

Anna S. Agbe-Davies

presumed to be. They are not merely valuable for co1nmenting on the experiences of black wo1nen in the past. For instance, a Black Feminist Archaeology transforms the possibilities of household archaeology. She notes the archaeological applications for the concept of homeplace, and integrates it with landscape archaeology to develop the idea of homespace(BattleBaptiste 2011: 48-51, 94). Critical stances and theoretical advances are 1nade all the more possible, or at least probable, when historical archaeologists have the opportunity to confront the structures of our own discipline and organizations. As important as it is to study racism's manifestations in the past, archaeologists are also making major critical contributions that examine the ways that racism shapes our own practice. For example, what does it 1nean to assert that archaeology is a white social space when, historically, a significant proportion of the work of archaeology was undertaken by people of color (Little 2007: 84; Jeppson 2007; Battle-Baptiste 2011: 68-70)? What are the consequences of eliding their efforts, of treating that work as not being "archaeology?" (Shepherd 2003). Similarly, in what ways can, do, should archaeologists leverage white privilege in anti-racist efforts (McDavid 2007; Joseph 2016)? The Society for Historical Archaeology "the largest scholarly group concerned with the archaeology of the modern world AD 1400-present" (Society for Historical Archaeology 2017) has recently taken steps to address racism directly. President Joe Joseph wrote in his column in the Society's newsletter that he aimed to use his term to "begin to make the SHA an anti-racism advocate and potentially even an activist society" (Joseph 2016: 2). The SHA has undertaken a range of Diversity Initiatives including outreach to institutions and communities whose members are underrepresented in the discipline, advocating for parks and historic sites that speak to a past that includes perspectives besides that of the white 1najority, as well as providing anti-racis1n training to Society members at the annual meeting. The goal is to "counter the effects of racism on disenfranchised groups" (Joseph 2016: 3). Critical awareness of racis1n more generally allows historical archaeologists to produce important critiques of analytical practice as well. Kerri Barile's analysis of how historical archaeologists in the US apply the National Historic Preservation Act (Barile 2004) demonstrates that the application of ostensibly race-neutral criteria leads to differential outcomes depending on the racial attribution of the sites' owners or occupants. In one county, 77% of sites attributed to white occupants were deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places-and therefore likely to be preserved or studied. Only 6% of sites attributed to black occupants received the same deter1nination (Barile 2004: 95). Barile found that this bias was likely a product of processes that valued sites with well-preserved architecture, 1nore numerous artifacts, and owner-occupants, all more likely to be the case with sites left by white people. Racism makes itself. Furthermore, Barile found that the ter1ninology used to refer to these sites varied by the attribution to black or white occupants. Whether intentional or not, the practices of archaeologists ensured that "few late-19th-century African American sites will be federally or locally protected. This era, and those who experienced it and their descendants will re1nain 'without history' indefinitely" (Barile 2004: 98). Such work builds on the insights of Critical Race Theory in which legal structures are shown to privilege members of one racial group over others. In this case, these are structures of both the past being studied as well as the present. Where do the categories that Barile's study relies on come from, and how do historical archaeologists track the trajectory of their development? 88

Race

Racialization Perhaps one reason that historical archaeologists have turned to race as a major topic is that archaeology offers one 1neans of examining not only the material consequences of the race concept/racism, but also the 1naterial evidence of those past processes that created and produced racial categories. Racialization, the process of "assigning [people] to essentialist groups based on physical appearance or some other readily identifiable characteristics" (Orser 2004: 5), to the extent that it leaves material traces, is subject to archaeological analysis. A crude exa1nple of the role of material culture in racialization would be the racial caricatures produced by manufacturers of decorative arts and toys (Barton and So1nerville 2012). Such objects facilitate the transmission of racist ideologies, giving ideas physical, durable shape, reifying them. These artifacts transcend the need for direct interactions across racial lines (to provide target "others") and the need for explicit articulations of bigoted beliefs. Thus, they allow beliefs about difference, and especially inferiority, to beco1ne background noise, the air that people breathe. The theoretical stance that could allow historical archaeologists to examine this frame of reference directly is Critical Race Theory. A body of theory 1nost closely associated with legal studies, Critical Race Theory emerged to challenge "the ways in which race and racial power are constructed in American legal culture and, more generally, in American society as a whole" (Crenshaw et al. 1995: xiii). Within historical archaeology, it leads us to consider where racial categories co1ne from and how they are maintained. This perspective provides a framework for analyzing landscapes of white power (Epperson 2004) and the dynamics of preservation work with various publics (McDavid 2007). It has given rise to new methodologies such as Black Feminist Archaeology and critical syste1natics (Battle-Baptiste 2011; Agbe-Davies 2015). Global colonialism produced new categories-of-person that supported claims to land, bodies, and resources in order to do1ninate far-flung empires 1nore co1npletely. For example, colonial Virginians came to frame difference not in terms of geography or religious practice but ancestry and what we 1night call "race" (Agbe-Davies 2015). Terrance Epperson shows how the elites in colonial Virginia developed a racial understanding of whiteness that they then put into practice organizing plantation landscapes (Epperson 2001). These ideologies also influenced the design of civic architecture, gardens, and entire towns (Leone 2005). Part of what racialization does is to 1nystify its own procedures. Racialization explicitly 1nakes "others," but denies the racialized production of whiteness. Historical archaeologists have pushed against this fallacy in two notable ways. They have, like historians before them, explored the shifting boundaries of whiteness. They have also explored the contours of whiteness as a category. Charles Orser's analysis of the racialization of Irish people both in Ireland and abroad is a case in point (Orser 2004, 2007). He examines the process as it applies to a category co1n1nonly understood as "white" today. He shows the similarities (use of caricatures, the lifealtering impacts of racism on health and well-being) and differences (gradual acceptance as 1nembers of the dominant race) between the Irish case and others. This latter transfor1nation is visible to archaeologists, for exa1nple, in increased access to physicians which is marked by a decline in bottles containing patent medicines relative to those with doctor-prescribed cures (Brighton 2008). Racialization categorizes more than people. Jamie Brandon's work explores and pushes back against "'hillbilly history'," a narrative that erases people of color from the past. Racializing the

89

Anna S. Agbe-Davies

present-day Ozarks as white and projecting that understanding into the past makes racisin invisible and prevents people from understanding how racism, especially the threat of racist violence, produced the "white" present (Brandon 2013). In such cases, archaeology offers important testiinony to the region's dependence on racialized slavery and the subsequent purges of African Americans post Emancipation. Archaeology can also docuinent the process of racialization itself. Alison Bell's analysis of white ethnogenesis in the colonial Chesapeake considers the material apparatus that planters used to create a category, "white," in opposition to people of Native American and African descent. Architecture played a key role. The proliferation of outbuildings for workspaces-and the relegation of bound laborers to these structures-signaled their difference from owners of labor. Earthfast buildings persisted in part, Bell argues, because their tendency towards decay encouraged interdependency ainong owners who relied on their neighbors to help repair their dwellings, not to mention the ways that elite earthfast dwellings signaled solidarity with their less well-off white neighbors in a way that brick dwellings could not (Bell 2005). The production of racial subjects as a variety of enthogenesis,that is to say, "the processes, transformations, causes, and politics of social identity making" (Weik 2014: 292) continues a long tradition of historical archaeologists interested in how groups constructed as different from each other nonetheless shaped others' world views and material practices. Part of what created the category "Caucasian" in late-nineteenth-century Stockton, California, was the existence of a category, "Chinese" (Orser 2007: 146). Ethnogenesis, to the extent that it produces new racialized subjects, is a vehicle for understanding past concepts of racial difference; for example, the emergence of a new identity-Californio-in nineteenth-century California. Barbara Voss found that in that setting difference was marked by experiences of architectural and other landscapes, strategies for ceramic acquisition and use, and the selective consuinption of wild and doinestic foods-in other words, forins of material culture. However, difference was understoodand operationalized as a forin of racial difference, one that built on existing concepts of Native Californian, African, etc. and "project[ ed] cultural difference and social hierarchy onto the bodies of social subjects" (Voss 2008: 28-29). Terrance Weik observed the creation and maintenance of African Seininole identity, as they struggled with Anglo American encroachment on their territory and incorporated relict Native populations as well as people of African descent (Weik 2007). Voss and Weik might not agree with my characterization of ethnogenesis as a process that produces racial subjects as well as ethnic ones. However, I find it to be a useful strategy for conceptualizing racialization as a productive process, rather than . . a sorting exercise.

Conclusion Practically since the outset, historical archaeology has defined itself as a project to understand racial identity, racism, and racialization: Historic sites archaeology may be defined as archaeologycarriedout in sites which contain material evidenceof non-Indian culture or concerningwhich there is contemporarynonIndian documentaryrecord."Indian" in this definition refers to the American Indian, that is, to the New World aboriginal population. (Fontana 1978 [1963})

90

Race

Historic sites archaeology by studying the processes well as those of culture dynarnic periods of world

can make a major contribution to modern anthropology of European expansion, exploration, and colonization as contact and imperialism, that underlie one of the most history. (Schuyler 1970: 30)

A popular definition of historical archaeology is the archaeologyof the spread of European culture throughout the world since the fifteenth century and its impact on indigenous peoples. (Deetz 19 7 7: 5, emphasisin the original) It is probably no coincidence that a self-consciously historical archaeology has taken hold 1nost firmly in 1nodern states shaped by a certain experience of settler colonialis1n. This author does not necessarily agree with the for1nulation that "race" is best defined by imposition fro1n the outside. Such a concept 1nakes it difficult to understand transgressive uses of race or the reasons for its salience among the dominated. That being said, such a formulation 1nay help us understand the special relationship between historical archaeology and race. Just as Nelson observed in the Korean case, historical archaeology is a project about who "we" are, and in the places where historical archaeology as such has gained the greatest foothold, places like the US, Australia, or South Africa, the descendants of the colonizers constitute the "we" of the national imagination. Following Barth, "we" only exist in relation to "them," so for all of the focus on racialized others, historical archaeology is in so1ne measure a project about whiteness. Racial difference, racism, and racialization cannot be disentangled from one another. Furthermore, the archaeology of race is the archaeology of racis1n. We need a robust archaeology of race in order to more fully understand the past, its relation to the present, and our own practice going forward.

References cited Agbe-Davies, Anna S. 2015. Tobacco,Pipes, and Race in Colonial Vi,;ginia:Little Tubes ef Mighty Power. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc. American Anthropological Association. 1998. "AAA Statement on 'Race'." Anthropology Newsletter 39 (6): 3. American Anthropological Association. 2011. "Race: Are We So Different?." www.understandingrace. org/home.html, accessed 10 July 2014. Barile, Kerri S. 2004. "Race, the National Register, and Cultural Resource Management: Creating an Historic Context for Postbellum Sites." HistoricalArchaeology38 (1): 90-100. Barth, Fredrik. 1969. "Introduction." In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries:The Social O,;ganizationof Cultural Differences,edited by Fredrik Barth, 9-38. London: Allen & Unwin. Barton, Christopher P. and I{yle Somerville. 2012. "Play Things: Children's Racialized Mechanical Banks and Toys, 1880-1930." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology16 (1): 47-85. doi: 10.1007 / s10761-012-0169-y. Bassett, Everett. 1994. ""We Took Care of Each Other Like Families Were Meant to": Gender, Social Organization, and Wage Labor among the Apache at Roosevelt." In Those ef Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in HistoricalArchaeology,edited by Elizabeth M. Scott, 55-79. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. Battle-Baptiste, Whitney L. 2011. Black Feminist Archaeology.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Bell, Alison. 2005. "White Ethnogenesis and Gradual Capitalism: Perspectives from Colonial Archaeological Sites in the Chesapeake." American Anthropologist 107 (3): 446-460. doi: 10.1525/ aa.2005.107.3.446.

91

Anna S. Agbe-Davies

Brace, C. Loring. 2005. "Race" Is a Four-Letter Word: The Genesis of the Concept.New York: Oxford University Press. Brandon, Jamie C. 2013. "Reversing the Narrative ofHillbilly History: A Case Study Using Archaeology at Van Winkle's Mill in the Arkansas Ozarks." HistoricalArchaeology47 (3): 36-51. Brighton, Stephen A. 2008. "Degrees of Alienation: The Material Evidence of the Irish and Irish American Experience, 1850-1910." HistoricalArchaeology42 (4): 132-153. Camp, Stacey Lynn. 2016. "Landscapes of Japanese American Internment." HistoricalArchaeology50 (1): 169-186. Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics." The University of ChicagoLegal Forum 1989 (139): 139-167. Crenshaw, I{imberle, Neil Gotanda, Gary Peller, and I{endall Thomas. 1995. "Introduction." In Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement, edited by I{imberle Crenshaw, Neil Gotanda, Gary Peller, Kendall Thomas, xiii-xxxii. New York: The New Press. Dawdy, Shannon Lee. 2000. "Preface." HistoricalArchaeology34 (3): 1-4. Deetz, James F. 1977. In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology ef Early American Life. New York: Anchor Books. Deetz, Kelley F., Ellen Chapman, Ana Edwards, and Phil Wilayto. 2015. "Historic Black Lives Matter: Archaeology as Activism in the 21st Century." African DiasporaArchaeologyNewsletter 15 (1): 1-33. Echo-Hawk, Roger and Larry J Zimmerman. 2006. "Beyond Race: Some Opinions about Racialism and American Archaeology." The American Indian Quarterly30 (3-4): 461-485. Epperson, Terrence W. 2001. ""A Separate House for the Christian Slaves, One for the Negro Slaves': The Archaeology of Race and Identity in Late Seventeenth-Century Virginia." In Race and the ArchaeologyefIdentity, edited by Charles E. Orser, Jr., 54-70. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press. Epperson, Terrence W. 2004. "Critical Race Theory and the Archaeology of the African Diaspora." HistoricalArchaeology38 (1): 101-108. Evans, William S., Jr. 1980. "Food and Fantasy: Material Culture of the Chinese in California and the West, Circa 1850-1900." In ArchaeologicalPerspectiveson Ethnicity in America, edited by Robert L Schuyler, 89-96. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. Farnsworth, Paul. 1993. "'What Is the Use of Plantation Archaeology?' No Use at All, if No One Else Is Listening!" HistoricalArchaeology27 (1): 114-116. Ferguson, Leland. 1980. "Looking for the 'Afro' in Colono-Indian Pottery." In ArchaeologicalPerspectives on Ethnicity in America, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, 14-28. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. Fontana, Bernard L. 1978 [1963]. "On the Meaning of Historic Sites Archaeology." In HistoricalArchaeology:A Guide to Substantive and TheoreticalContributions,edited by Robert Schuyler, 23-26. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood Publishing Co. Franklin, Maria. 2001. "A Black Feminist-inspired Archaeology?" Journal of Social Archaeology 1 (1): 108-125. Fuentes, Agustin. 2010. "The New Biological Anthropology: Bringing Washburn's New Physical Anthropology into 2010 and beyond." AmericanJournal of PhysicalAnthropology 143 (S51): 2-12. doi: 10.1002/ ajpa.21438. Gonzalez-Tennant, E. and Diana Gonzalez-Tennant. 2016. "The Practice and Theory of New Heritage for Historical Archaeology." HistoricalArchaeology50 (1): 187-204. Gosden, Chris. 2006. "Race and Racism in Archaeology: Introduction." World Archaeology38 (1): 1-7. Greenwood, Roberta S. 1980. "The Chinese on Main Street." In ArchaeologicalPerspectiveson Ethnicity in America, edited by Robert L Schuyler, 113-123. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. Handsman, Russell G. 2015. "Race-Based Differences and Historical Archaeologies in Indian New England." In The Archaeologyef Race in the Northeast, edited by Christopher N. Matthews and Allison Manfra McGovern, 232-251. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Harrington, J.C. 1951. "Tobacco Pipes from Jamestown." Quarterly Bulletin of the ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia5 (4). Harrison, Faye V. 1995. "The Persistent Power of 'Race' in the Cultural and Political Economy of Racism." Annual Review of Anthropology24: 47-74. Hill, Jane H. 2008. The Everyday Languageof White Racism. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

92

Race

Jeppson, Patrice L. 2007. "Civil Religion and Civically Engaged Archaeology: Researching Benjamin Franklin and the Pragmatic Spirit." In Archaeologyas a Tool ef Civic Engagement, edited by Barbara J.Little and Paul A. Shackel, 173-202. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press. Jones, Sian. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. London: Routledge. Joseph, J.W. Ooe). 2016. "President's Corner." The Societyfor HistoricalArchaeologyNewsletter49 (2): 2-4. La Roche, Cheryl J., and Michael L. Blakey. 1997. "Seizing Intellectual Power: The Dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground." HistoricalArchaeology31 (3): 84-106. Lawrence, Susan and Peter Davies. 2011. An ArchaeologyefAustralia since 1788. New York: Springer. Leone, Mark P. 2005. The Archaeologyof Liberty in an American Capital: Excavationsin Annapolis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Little, Barbara]. 2007. HistoricalArchaeology:Why the Past Matters. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Loren, Diana DiPaolo. 2010. The Archaeologyef Clothing and Bodily Adornment in Colonial America: The American Experiencein Archaeological Perspective.Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Mack, Mark E. and Michael L. Blakey. 2004. "The New York African Burial Ground Project: Past Biases, Current Dilemmas, and Future Research Opportunities." HistoricalArchaeology38 (1): 10-17. Matthews, Christopher N. 2011. "Lonely Islands: Culture, Community, and Poverty in Archaeological Perspective." HistoricalArchaeology45 (3): 41-54. McDavid, Carol. 2007. "Beyond Strategy and Good Intentions: Archaeology, Race, and White Privilege." In Archaeologyas a Tool ef Civic Engagement, edited by Barbara J. Little and Paul A. Shackel, 67-88. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press. McDavid, Carol. 2011. "When Is 'Gone' Gone? Archaeology, Gentrification, and Competing Narratives about Freedmen's Town, Houston." HistoricalArchaeology45 (3): 74-88. McGovern, Allison Manfra. 2015. "Facing 'The End': Termination and Survivance among the Montaukett of Eastern Long Island, NY." In The ArchaeologyefRace in the Northeast, edited by Christopher N. Matthews and Allison Manfra McGovern, 215-231. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Mrozowski, Stephen A., James A. Delle,and Robert Paynter. 2000. "Introduction." In Lines That Divide: HistoricalArchaeologiesefRace, Class, and Gender, edited by James A Delle, Stephen A. Mrozowski, and Robert Paynter, xi-xxxi. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press. Mullings, Leith. 2005. "Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist Anthropology," Annual Review ef Anthropology 34 (ArticleType: research-article/Full publication date: 2005/Copyright © 2005 Annual Reviews): 667-693. doi: 10.2307 /25064903. Murray, Pauli and Mary O Eastwood. 1965. "Jane Crow and the Law: Sex Discrimination and Title VII." GeorgeWashingtonLaw Review 34 (2): 232-256. Nelson, Sarah M. 1996. "The Politics of Ethnicity in Prehistoric Korea." In Nationalism, Politicsand the PracticeefArchaeology,edited by Clare Fawcett, Philip L. Kohl, 218-231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Orser, Charles E., Jr. 2004. Race and Practicein ArchaeologicalInterpretation.Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Orser, Charles E. 2007. The ArchaeologyefRace and Racialization in HistoricAmerica: The American Experiencein ArchaeologicalPerspective.Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Pattillo, Mary. 2007. Black on the Block: The PoliticsefRace and Class in the City. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Perry, Warren R., Jean Howson, Barbara A Bianco. 2006. "New York African Burial Ground Archaeology Final Report." In New York African Burial Ground ArchaeologyFinal Report. www.africanburial ground.com/FinalReports/ Archaeology/ ABG_Ch05FEB.pdf: Howard University. Reilly, Matthew C. 2016. "Archaeologies of Instability: Order and Disorder in Colonial Barbados." Journal efSocialArchaeology16 (2): 216-237. doi: 10.1177 /1469605315612684. Russell, Lynette. 2005. '"Either, or, Neither Nor': Resisting the Production of Gender, Race and Class Dichotomies in the Pre-Colonial Period." In The ArchaeologyefPlural and Changing Identities: Beyond Identification,edited by Eleanor Conlin Casella, Chris Fowler, 33-51. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum. Schuyler, Robert L. 1970. "Historical and Historic Sites Archaeology as Anthropology: Basic Definitions and Relationships." HistoricalArchaeology4: 83-89. Schuyler, Robert L. 1980a. ArchaeologicalPerspectiveson Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American Cultural History. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

93

Anna S. Agbe-Davies

Schuyler, Robert L. 1980b. "Preface." In ArchaeologicalPerspectiveson Ethnicity in America, edited by Schuyler, Robert L., vii-viii. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. Scott, Elizabeth. 1994. "Through the Lens of Gender: Archaeology, Inequality, and Those 'of Little Note'." In Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in HistoricalArchaeology,edited by Elizabeth M. Scott, 3-24. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. Seiter, Jane I., Michael J. Worthington, Barbara L. Voss, and Megan S. Kane. 2015. "Carving Chopsticks, Building Home: Wood Artifacts from the Market Street Chinatown in San Jose, California." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology19 (3): 664-685. doi: 10.1007 /s10761-015-0303-8. Shaw, Thurstan. 1960. "Early Smoking Pipes: In Africa, Europe, and America." The Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute 90 (2): 272-305. Shepherd, Nick. 2003. '"When the Hand that Holds the Trowel Is Black ... ' Disciplinary Practices of Self-Representation and the Issue of 'Native' Labour in Archaeology." Journal of SocialArchaeology3 (3): 334-352. doi: 10.1177/14696053030033003. Society for Historical Archaeology. "Who We Are." https://sha.org/about-us/, accessed 10 July 2017. Spencer-Wood, Suzanne M. 1994. "Diversity and Nineteenth-Century Domestic Reform: Relationships among Classes and Ethnic Groups." In Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in HistoricalArchaeology, edited by Elizabeth M Scott, 175-208. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. Statistical Research, Inc. 2009. The Skeletal Biology, Archaeology,and History efthe New York African Burial Ground: A Synthesis ef Volumes 1, 2, and 3. Washington, DC: Howard University Press. Sterling, Kathleen. 2015. "Black Feminist Theory in Prehistory." Archaeologies11 (1): 93-120. doi: 10.1007 /sl 1759-015-9265-z. Voss, Barbara L. 2008. The ArchaeologyefEthnogenesis:Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Weik, Terrance. 2007. "Allies, Adversaries, and I{in in the African Seminole Communities of Florida: Archaeology at Pilaklikaha." In Archaeology of Atlantic Africa and the African Diaspora, edited by Akinwumi Ogundiran and T oyin Falola, 311- 331. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Weik, T.M. 2014. "The Archaeology ofEthnogenesis." Annual Review of Anthropology43: 291-305.

94

6

INTERSECTIONALITY, QUEER ARCHAEOLOGY,AND SEXUAL EFFECTS Recent advances in the archaeology of sexualities Megan E. Springate

Introduction Human sexuality has not often been directly addressed in archaeological studies; indeed, it has been avoided as a taboo area of study (Luiz, 2014; Voss, 2008a). And yet, as archaeologists, we engage with sexuality all the ti1ne through implication, an "awkward shadow of gender" (Voss, 2009: 30) including discussions of kinship, households, gender roles, gender ideology, and objects interpreted as fertility symbols. These are often interpreted using unspoken and unexamined assumptions that people in the past were monogamous and heterosexual, and that sexuality was related solely to procreation (Voss, 2008a: 318). Where we have specifically addressed the sexuality of those we study, it has largely been in the context of behaviors that today are traditionally considered deviant, nonnormative, and "other": the "queers, freaks, and hookers" (Voss, 2009: 32) - though even these studies have generally been fra1ned around understanding gender rather than examinations of sexuality. Archaeology has a long entangle1nent with the social construction and understanding of sexualities dating back to at least the eighteenth century. This includes the coining of the word "pornography," ancestral models of alternative sexualities including bisexuality and gender ambiguity, and influences on Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey (Voss, 2008a: 318). The direct study of sexualities in archaeology developed out of gender, fe1ninist, and queer archaeologies (Voss, 2000, 2009). These, in turn, were informed by the work of anthropologists like Gayle Rubin (1975) who disentangled sex, gender, and sexuality as areas of study, and of theorists like Judith Butler (1990), who showed us that gender is a context-specific and reflective performance that requires both actors and audience. Other influential theorists include Michel Foucault (1976) and Eve Sedgwick (1990). In 2000, two groundbreaking volumes were published that heralded important changes in the field: The Archaeologiesof Sexuality, edited by Robert Schmidt and Barbara Voss

95

Megan E. Springate

(2000) and an issue of World Archaeologies,edited by Thomas Dowson (2000a), that focused on queer archaeology. Together, these volu1nes presented a body of work - theoretical, 1nethodological, and through case studies - demonstrating that our failure to engage directly with sexualities was significantly limiting our interpretations and understandings of the past. They laid the foundation for sexualities as a critical area of archaeological study. Since these two volumes were published, archaeologists have been taking research into past sexualities increasingly seriously, and this has been reflected in conference sessions and in published work. Key works published since 2000 include conference proceedings fro1n the 2004 Chac1nool Conference "Que(e)rying Archaeology" (Terendy et al., 2009); an overview of the archaeology of sexuality in the Annual Review of Anthropology (Voss, 2008a); the expansion of queer archaeology beyond sexuality and incorporating intersectional analysis (Blackmore, 2011); an examination of sexual effects in the colonial project writ large (Voss and Casella, 2012); a theme issue of the SAA ArchaeologicalRecord, "Toward an Inclusive Queer Archaeology" (Rutecki and Blackmore, 2016); and an LGBTQ archaeological context that connects the archaeology of sexual and gender minorities to broader inquiries in historical archaeology (Springate, 2019a). This chapter begins with a discussion of the distinctions and overlaps between the concepts of gender, sex, and sexuality. I then summarize what I believe are the most important advances in the archaeology of sexualities since 2000: the expansion and growth of queer archaeology, intersectional analysis, and the study of sexual effects instead of sexual identity and activity. The discussion then turns to so1ne of the 1nain issues currently being addressed in the archaeology of sexualities, and some of the ways that historical archaeologists are approaching them. I define historical archaeology here to include post-medieval archaeology in the UK, the archaeologies of recent and 1nodern states elsewhere, as well as archaeological investigations of colonial contexts beyond North America. Important work in other areas that should not be ignored in studying past sexualities, but which are not elaborated upon here, includes: contexts outside this definition of historical archaeology (Baird, 2015; Garraffoni, 2012; Gilchrist, 2000; Joyce, 2000; Lopez-Bertran, 2012; Meskell, 2000; Sch1nidt, 2000; Voss, 2008a; Weismantel, 2012); bioarchaeology (Geller, 2009; Kirkpatrick, 2000); history (Godbeer, 2004; Lavrin, 2010; Sousa, 2017; Tortorici, 2016); and even literature (Blumberg, 2017).

Gender, sex, and sexuality Gender, sex, and sexuality are distinct, but deeply intertwined aspects of human life (for early discussions of this, see Rubin, 1975, 1984). In Western society, these categories are generally perceived as binary: female/1nale; woman/man; homosexual/heterosexual. These qualities are also often conflated and essentialized: for exa1nple, effeminate men and 1nasculine women are often assumed to be homosexual. Just as there has been an increasing recognition in Western society that these categories are not binary, essential, or causally related (Baum and Westheimer, 2015; Boellstorff, 2007), so too has there been increasing engage1nent with these ideas in historical archaeology. Cultural anthropologists have long recorded cultures that recognize more than two genders. These include many Native American tribes, each of which has a different understanding of what that means (Roscoe, 2019; see also archaeological work by Sandra Hollimon, 2000, 2009; Prine, 2000); Aboriginal people in Australia (sistergirls and brotherboys); and cultures in Myan1nar (acault),Albania (burnesha),Oman (xanith), Oxaca, Mexico (muxe); and the five genders recognized by the Bugis people of South Sulawesi, Indonesia, and others 96

Archaeology of sexualities

(Davies, 2006; Nanda, 2014; Public Broadcasting Syste1n; 2015). Gender is not an innate characteristic, and people's gender identity (internal) and expression (external behavior) can change throughout their lives (Stryker, 2019). While there was some early work in archaeology that interrogated the variability of gender and how it is constructed and understood (i.e. Conkey and Gero, 1997), 1nuch of the work looking at gender in archaeology continues to essentialize gender and the woman/fe1nale-man/male binary. The characteristics that define these qualities likewise have not been generally interrogated (Voss and Schmidt, 2000: 14). Queer archaeology and the archaeology of sexualities challenge these categories. Just as gender is not a binary category, neither is biological sex. The biological sex of a person (which often dictates the gender they are assigned at birth - i.e. given a pink or blue bow) is generally based on the presence of particular genetalia at birth. These genetalia 1nay or 1nay not be clearly male or female, and may or may not be consistent with the person's genetic makeup. A significant number of people are born intersex: having both male and female characteristics or characteristics that do not fall neatly into either category. The frequency of intersex births in the United States ranges from 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 (Intersex Society of North America, 2008). Fausto-Sterling (1993, 2000) uses both genetic and observable physical characteristics to argue that there are at least a minimu1n of five biological sexes. Sexuality is also not binary, nor is it an essential, fixed characteristic. Based on observations done in the 1930s and 1940s, Dr. Alfred Kinsey published works on sexuality in American 1nen and women (Kinsey et al., 1948; Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, 1953). In these works, Kinsey documented human sexuality existing on a spectrum ranging from totally heterosexual to totally homosexual, with variations in-between, as well as the existence of people who are asexual, who "have no socio-sexual contacts or reactions" (Kinsey et al., 1948: 656). Where people fall on Kinsey's scale is not fixed, and he found that people's sexual preferences shifted and changed depending on their life circu1nstances. This has been documented archaeologically in the diamond field settlements of South Africa, where 1nale miners formed emotional and sexual bonds with each other while in the field, and returned to heterosexual relationships when their tenure was over (Weiss, 2012). Complicating research into sexuality in the past and in different cultures is that the characteristics defining sexual behavior are unstable, relying on cultural and interpersonal context (Voss, 2007: 38): genital contact, touching an arm, unbound hair, or revealing an ankle are all examples of sexually charged behaviors that are culturally specific, and also depend on the relationship between individuals. To truly understand the nature of gender, sex, and sexuality, we must acknowledge that these categories and how they are embodied and understood are historically and culturally situated. We 1nust, therefore, be cautious in applying interpretations cross-culturally. So1ne two-spirit identities of Native American tribes - past and present - for example, fall outside the binary (male-female) sex and gender system dominant in Western culture (see Roscoe, 2019). Despite this, these individuals have often been described by archaeologists and ethnohistorians using terms like "ho1nosexual" and "transgender" or "transsexual" - terms rooted in a particular binary sex and gender system. In Native American cultures that recognize 1nultiple genders, these descriptors are meaningless, and do nothing to further the understanding of past (and present) cultures. Early archaeological studies of contact- and proto-contact-period Native Americans often looked at evidence fro1n burials and identified individuals as two-spirit (transgender and/ or homosexual) when their cultural gender (expressed by the artifacts they were buried with) differed fro1n their physical sex (determined through the analysis of bone morphology -

97

Megan E. Springate

a methodology that has only varying levels of accuracy; Mays and Cox, 2000). These interpretations were supported by ethnohistorical accounts based on European interpretations of Native American cultures (Roscoe, 2019; Voss, 2005). Similar approaches have been used elsewhere to identify gender diversity; for an overview, see Bettina Arnold's (2007) "Gender and Archaeological Mortuary Analysis" and Joanna Sofaer and Marie Stig Sorensen's (2013) "Death and Gender," both of which include examples from historical archaeology. As archaeologists, we are beginning to engage with sex and gender with more nuance, including decoupling sex and gender assigned to an individual at birth and the sex and gender assigned archaeologically, after death (Rush, 2017). More nuanced and holistic archaeological approaches extend to understanding two-spirit identities incorporating non-burial information. For example, Sandra Hollimon has re-considered her previous analysis of Chu1nash burials. Originally interpreted as an 'aqi or two-spirit burial (Hollimon, 1997), reinterpretation from a broader context indicates that 'aqi identity is usually associated with those who are me1nbers of an undertaking guild and who do not engage in procreative sex; while this category can include people who have sex with others of the same gender, it is not defined that way (Holli1non, 2000, 2009). Similarly nuanced work has also been done by archaeologist Elizabeth Prine (1997, 2000) in her study of the miati of the Hidatsa and by Perry and Joyce (2001) in their exa1nination of Zuni lhamana identities. Unfortunately, even when archaeologists are careful not to conflate homosexuality and gender difference within a culture, the popular press is often only too happy to do so (Kilgrove, 2017; McKenna, 2017; The Telegraph,2011).

Major developments In the last ten years, the 1nost significant advances in the archaeology of expansion of queer archaeology to engage broadly with the non-normative what are considered essential categories; the introduction of intersectional study of sexual effects. These developments span the various subfields including historical archaeology, which is the focus of this discussion.

sexuality are the and to challenge analysis; and the of archaeology,

Queer archaeology In 2008, Barbara Voss (2008a) identified the growing application of queer theory to archaeology as perhaps the most intriguing development in the archaeology of sexuality, providing a "methodological bridge between archaeological research on sexuality and research on other aspects of social identity" (Voss, 2008a: 317). Queer archaeology developed out of feminist archaeologies and the broader field of queer theory, which in general is a framework that demands engagement with, evaluation of, and challenge to what we think we know, assume, and privilege - as a society, as researchers, and as individuals. It is "at odds with the nor1nal, the legitimate, the dominant" (Halperin, 1995: 62) and acts to unbalance and destabilize what Katrina Eichner calls "dominant fictions" (Eichner, 2015a). I1nportant works in queer theory include those by Judith Butler (1990), David Halperin (1995), Judith Gack) Halberstam (1998, 2005), Jose Esteban Munoz (1999), and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (1990). Early uses of queer theory in archaeology - beginning with the works of Dowson (2000a) and Schmidt and Voss (2000) - challenged the essential nature of gender that had underpinned much of gender archaeology. Instead, queer archaeology understood gender to be produced, performed, and/ or embodied both interpersonally and in concert with 98

Archaeology of sexualities

co1nmunity (Hollimon, 2000, 2009; Joyce, 2004, 2008; Perry and Joyce, 2001; Prine, 2000; Voutaski, 2010). "Que(e)rying Archaeology" (Terendy et al., 2009), the conference proceedings of the 2004 Chacmool Conference, is an early compendium of research engaging through a queer lens after 2000. In 2011, Chelsea Blackmore published "How to Queer the Past without Sex: Queer Theory, Feminis1ns and the Archaeology of Identity." Although written in the context of the archaeology of the ancient Maya, Black1nore's call for queer archaeology to expand beyond sexuality and to encompass all aspects of intersectional identities and identity formation, has been taken up by researchers in historical archaeology (see below). Historical archaeologists have also begun to disrupt and question categories beyond identities that have see1ned essential and natural (like past and present; knowing and feeling). In the process, they are challenging the 1nethodologies and interpretations that have been based on those assu1nptions. The for1nation of the Queer Archaeology Interest Group (QAIG) within the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) has played a significant role in the increased visibility of queer archaeology. Since its founding in 2014, a considerable amount of work in queer historical archaeology has been presented in QAIG-sponsored and unsponsored queer sessions at the SAA annual meetings (Blackmore and Springate, 2015; Walley, 2017a). Not coincidentally, since several historical archaeologists have been working in queer archaeology, sessions also began appearing at the Society for Historical Archaeology conferences, including so1ne sponsored by the Gender and Minority Affairs Com1nittee (Eichner and Rodriguez, 2015; Iadanza, 2017; Springate, 2014). Queer archaeology papers have also found welcome homes in sessions not necessarily organized around queerness or sexuality. These include: studies of Buffalo Soldiers in Texas (Eichner, 2017), a collaborative teaching project that uses a queer feminist pedagogy; the examination of roller derby and queer heritage (McComb and Kle1nbara, 2018); a queered look at the ceramic industries of nineteenth-century South Carolina (Fields and Arjona, 2016); the roots of modern queerphobia (Heinz, 2017); a queer analysis of respectability and resistance on the vacation landscape (Springate, 2018); queer aesthetics (Porter-Lupu, 2018); the preservation of queer history (Crippen, 2016; Posadas, 2015; Springate, 2016); the queerness of African American jook joints (Arjona, 2015, 2017); and queering what it means to be American (Eichner, 2015b). The SAA ArchaeologicalRecord special volume on queer archaeology (Rutecki and Blackmore, 2016) serves as a snapshot of the state of the field; two volumes based largely on the above-mentioned conference presentations are in the process of publication (an HistoricalArchaeologyvolume on queer archaeology edited by Katrina Eichner and a volume on queer archaeologies forthcoming from Routledge edited by Chelsea Blackmore and Megan E. Springate). Like feminist archaeology and other critical archaeologies, queer archaeology is politically engaged, connecting the past to the political present. Invoking queer and postcolonial theorists, Barbara Voss positioned the archaeology of sexualities as firmly within these realms, and therefore, also inherently political (Voss, 2012: 12). "A queer politic of archaeology," she wrote, "must seek to trouble received cultural categories and participate in present-day struggles over the cultural history of marriage, the fa1nily, and sexuality" (Voss, 2009: 29). When she originally presented that statement at the Chacmool "Que(e)rying Archaeology" conference in Nove1nber of 2004, the United States Supreme Court had recently decided Lawrence v. Texas, making sodomy laws unenforceable; Massachusetts had determined that denying same-sex 1narriage rights violated the state's constitution and was the first state to license same-sex marriage; city officials in California, New York, New Mexico, Oregon, and New Jersey issued thousands of same-sex marriage licenses that were later ruled invalid; and eleven states had approved constitutional a1nend1nents defining marriage as the union of

99

Megan E. Springate

one man and one woman. Arguments both for and against same-sex marriage invoked essential, unchanging "tradition" and "nature" (both aspects of the past) to fuel their cause. While written as the battle towards same-sex marriage rights gained stea1n, Voss' call to trouble cultural categories and engage in present-day struggles around sex and sexuality remains relevant. Even though the 2015 United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges made same-sex marriage legal across the country, culture wars continue to swirl around sex work and sex workers, non-normative sexuality and identities, abortion rights, adoption rights, #MeToo, toxic 1nasculinity, sexual violence, and other sexual effects.

Intersectionality Intersectionality is the recogn1t1on that various axes of identity such as gender, sex, class, and race influence and are influenced by each other. A recognition of intersectional identities goes back to at least the middle of the nineteenth century, when Sojourner Truth asked, "Ain't I A Women?" (Truth, 1851); in 1977, the Combahee River Collective released a statement describing "interlocking oppressions." The term "intersectionality" was first used in print by Kimberle Crenshaw (1989) in describing Black people's experiences in the cri1ninal justice syste1n. It is no accident that it has been women of color who have long articulated the "interlocking oppressions" of being both Black and female. While historians have looked at, for example, the intersectional creation of gender and class (i.e. Flexner, 1959; Kessler-Harris, 2003, 2007; Ryan, 1981; Stansell, 1982) it has taken much longer to gain a foothold in archaeological research. An important advance since 2000 was Black1nore's argument that a queer approach to identity is inherently intersectional, focusing on the social positionality, or co1nposite of identities that make up an individual (Blackmore, 2011: 76-77). While understanding that different axes of identity influence each other is rather straightforward, doing intersectional analysis and interpretation to tease out these connections without privileging identities is the greatest challenge of intersectionality (see, for example, Sandoval, 1991). Several theorists and researchers outside of archaeology have proposed ways to make an intersectional approach work, including multivocality (Brown, 1992; Wylie, 2008), integrity in scholarship (Wylie, 2008), and strategic essentialis1n (Spivak 1996; for an overview of these, see Springate, 2019). Exa1nples of successful engagement with sexuality as part of an intersectional analysis include Whitney Battle-Baptiste's (2011) development of a Black feminist archaeology; Barbara Voss' (2008b) look at the ethnogenesis of Californios;Sandra Hollimon's (2000, 2009) analysis of two-spirit people in California; and Megan Springate's (2017) exa1nination of respectability politics and capitalism in the context of su1nmer vacations. Voss and Casella's (2012) focus on sexual effects versus sexuality is a crucial intervention that provides an important framework for studying sexuality through an intersectional lens that includes other identities, social structures, and power dynamics.

Sexual effects In 2008, Barbara Voss (2008b) published The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco.In it, she focuses on how colonial people in what is now San Francisco created, maintained, and used 1neanings around race and sexuality to distinguish the1nselves as a distinct identity. "Colonization," she writes, "is one historical pheno1nenon that generates conditions under which exiting patterns of social identification lose their relevance and new social identities e1nerge, both with consent and by force" (Voss, 2008b: 12). These 100

Archaeology of sexualities

identities include gender, ethnicity, race, class, age, and sexuality, and their meanings and expressions become malleable for both the colonized and colonizer (Voss, 2008b: 12-13). Using an intersectional approach that also considers axes of identity like skin color and language, Voss examines what she and Eleanor Casella (2012) would later call sexual effects social rules and mores developed around intermarriage and procreation, sexual availability and taboo, ancestry and ideas of "co1nmon origin," acceptable and unacceptable sexual relationships, etc. - and how these rules were established, maintained, and transgressed in the develop1nent of Californio as an identity. Same-sex sexuality, premarital sex, polygamy, and 1nultiple genders, for example, were invoked as an exa1nple of the "savagery" of the indigenous people in the region, setting them apart from - and excluding the1n fro1n being Californio. This exclusion was not just in name, but included forcibly removing native peoples from their villages to Catholic missions for conversion (Voss, 2008b: 51). In 2012 Barbara Voss and Eleanor Casella published their edited volu1ne, The Archaeology of Colonialism: Intimate Encounters and Sexual Effects. It had its origins in a session at the 2008 Word Archaeological Congress, where Voss and Casella challenged presenters to find richness in disciplinary silences - in this case, in silences around sexuality. They charged presenters to "consider what archaeology's 1nethodological emphasis on place, material culture, and representation could uniquely bring to studies of sexuality and colonization" (Casella and Voss, 2012: 3). The challenge was a timely one, as colonial historians have only recently begun to engage with how to study sexuality beyond assumptions of heterosexuality in the context of marriage and procreation (i.e. Godbeer, 2004; Lavrin, 2010; Tortorici, 2016). The result is an approach to archaeology that places sexuality as fundamental (rather than incidental) to the colonial project and addresses several of the issues that had challenged those studying sexuality via the archaeological record. Sexual effects are, in short, "the 1nany 'tense and tender ties' (Stoler, 2001) that bind together political, institutional, economic, emotive, affectionate, and familial aspects of the social lives that unfolded in both metropole and colony" (Casella and Voss, 2012: 1; Voss, 2012: 11). This approach firmly complicates sexuality as not just about heterosexuality, not just about procreation, and not a static, essential quality. Sexuality instead is approached as "a broad asse1nblage of socialities and affects - a constellation of embodied and expressive human intimacies - that range from the seductive, pleasurable, and erotic through the fa1nilial, parental, nonnormative and ho1nosocial, and into the involuntary, strategic, and exploitative" (Casella and Voss, 2012: 1-2). This work expands areas of investigation well beyond the private, do1nestic spaces of bedroom and brothel, and into a broader scale including settle1nents, neighborhoods, and entire cities (Hall, 2012: 326). The study of societal sexual effects instead of personal sexuality allows explorations of the realms of oppression and resistance, the complex interplay of taboo and exoticis1n, the commodification of bodies, politics of reproduction, develop1nent of capitalism and consolidation of state infrastructures, and the emergence of 1nodernity itself (Casella and Voss, 2012: 4). While several of the chapters do not fall under what we generally consider to be historical archaeology, the archaeology of the modern world is inherently the archaeology of colonial and imperial projects. Thus, chapters in The Archaeologyof Colonialism that address pre-contact indigenous populations in the Americas, Roman Gladiators, and ancient Punic and Phoenecian societies are of interest. Separate fro1n the colonial encounter, the ways that archaeology at sites associated with sexual and gender minorities can be informed by and inform broader questions in historical archaeology also fall under the broad umbrella of sexual effects (Springate, 2019). There are very few published accounts of historical archaeology that investigate lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, two-spirit sites and those of other gender and sexual minorities (Casella, 101

Megan E. Springate

2000a, 2000b; Hollimon, 2000, 2009; Marshall et al., 2009; Rubin, 2000; Schofield and Anderton, 2000). Because of this lack of data, instead of preparing an archaeological context for sites associated with gender and sexual minorities, Springate (2019) looked at possible avenues of inquiry that have precedent for investigation in other archaeological contexts (including African American archaeology, household and com1nunity archaeology, archaeology of the life cycle, gender archaeology, the archaeology of class, and the archaeology of assimilation and resistance). The archaeology of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and two-spirit places and landscapes has the potential to provide important information about past genders, sexualities, and sexual effects, but also to contribute to important dialogues in historical archaeology about the relationship between and expressions of sexuality and gender, community, cultural change, and identity.

Problems in the archaeology of sexualities By taking sexualities seriously in studying past cultures, researchers have been forced to engage with both epistemological and methodological challenges affecting our interpretations and understandings of the past. As the field of study has expanded since 2000, archaeologists have continued to struggle with these challenges, including stigma for researchers and sexual assault in the field, engaging with sexual violence, the essentialization of gender and sexuality, the relationship between materiality and sexuality, and investigating sex and sexuality in the context of sex work.

Sex and sexuality and archaeological practice In North American and other Western cultures, sex and sexuality are largely considered taboo subjects - things to be kept private; dirty; scandalous; obscene. This is especially true around non-heteronormative sex and sexuality: homosexuality, bisexuality, queerness, sex work and sex workers, public sex, radical sex, etc. (Rubin, 1984). The lack of work that specifically addresses sex and sexuality - especially marginalized sexual and gender minorities like lesbians, gays, bisexuals, queers, transgender folks, and two-spirit people - can be attributed to this taboo. Like fe1ninist archaeology, Black fe1ninist archaeology, and other critical, engaged archaeologies, queer archaeology recognizes that being queer in archaeology cannot be separated from the work that we do. Archaeologists have written about their hesitance to be associated with work considered "controversial," fearing that their research 1nay reduce their credibility or otherwise hurt their careers. These fears are amplified when the subject of research is non-heteronormative sex and sexuality, and especially when the researcher identifies as a member of a sexual and/ or gender minority (Claassen, 2000; Dowson, 2000b, 2009; Rubin, 2000: 65; She, 2000). Homophobia results in harassment and exclusion fro1n the field (Claassen, 2000; She, 2000) but also means that the work of queer people is dismissed: "academic men and women are forced to maintain an authority to act by denying or downplaying their 'deviant' sexuality" (Dowson, 2009: 280); "claimed homosexual identity operates as an instant disqualification, exposes you to accusations of pathology and partisanship . . . and grants everyone else an absolute epistemological privilege over you" (Halperin, 1995: 8). Much has changed in recent decades, including increased support for LGBTQ people in society at large. Archaeology as a field has also seen important shifts in the acceptance of sexuality as an area of legitimate research, and of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer practitioners. In 2014, I organized and chaired a forum at the Society for Historical 102

Archaeology of sexualities

Archaeology conference that included a panel discussion and what turned out to be a thoughtful question and answer session on the experiences of LGBTQ people in the field (Springate, 2014). In 2014, after almost a generation of effort thwarted, in part, by fear of professional repercussions, QAIG was founded as one of more than a dozen affiliates of the Society for American Archaeology. It provides a social and professional network for archaeologists who identify as me1nbers of sexual and gender 1ninorities, as well as for those studying and teaching queer pasts, to help overcome "the difficulties often associated with being LGBTQI [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex] and stigmatization within [the] discipline and society at large" (Blackmore and Rutecki, 2014). While several professional groups for LGBTQ researchers and research in related history and historic preservation fields were formed much earlier than QAIG (the earliest is the Com1nittee on LGBT History, affiliated with the American Historical Association and founded in 1979), archaeology has not been unfashionably late to the party. In 2013, for example, the Co1nmittee on the Status of LGBTQ Historians and Histories was established as part of the Organization of American Historians, and in 2016, the A1nerican Alliance of Museums released its Welcoming Guidelines, setting standards for LGBTQ inclusion in all areas of museum management (American Alliance of Museums, 2016; Dubrow, 2019). Just as LGBTQ professional organizations in other areas have buoyed research about sexual and gender minorities (Dubrow, 2019), QAIG has sponsored several conference sessions and forums, and its 1nembers are increasingly publishing in the field (Danis, 2016; Rutecki and Blackmore, 2016). Archaeologists are increasingly being open about their lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer identities, discussing how these identities have influenced how and what they study and the navigations of being open (or not) about their identities in the field - often framed around considerations of emotional, professional, and physical safety (Black1nore, 2018; Black1nore et al., 2016; Ca1npetti, 2015; Danis, 2016; Dowson, 2009; Hernandez, 2018; Klembara, 2018; McComb, 2018; Posadas, 2015; Prentiss, 2018; Springate, 2019). Conversations have also begun on what effective allyship looks like, both to archaeological practitioners and the co1nmunities we work with (Dylla et al., 2016; Walley, 2017b). Personal safety in archaeology is not just a concern of sexual and gender minorities. Recent studies receiving extensive coverage in both the media and within the archaeological profession have identified a disturbing prevalence of sexual harassment in field occupations, including archaeology (Clancy, 2013; Clancy et al., 2014; Meyers et al., 2015). Recognition of sexual harassment and sexual assault in archaeology is not new; calls for action date back at least to the 1990s (Wright, 2008). In a study of archaeologists in the American Southeast, researchers found that 71 percent of female respondents had been privy to or targets of inappropriate co1nments and re1narks in the field, while 77 percent of women had experienced unwanted sexual contact. Women are not the only targets for sexual harassment and sexual assault: 56 percent of 1nen reported inappropriate comments and 8 percent reported inappropriate physical contact (Meyers et al., 2015: 24). When we look at the nu1nbers for the most vulnerable people in our field - the undergraduate and graduate students, museum and field techs, seasonal workers, and others - the rates are even higher and perpetrators are predo1ninantly superiors and supervisors: 86 percent of all respondents (men and women) reported inappropriate com1nents; 80 percent reported unwanted advances (Meyers et al., 2015: 24). This problem is prevalent throughout all of the various avenues of archaeology: academia, cultural resource management, government, and non-profit (Meyers et al., 2015: 25; White, 2017). Across the board, respondents indicate a lack of clear guidelines outlining expected behavior, defining what constitutes sexual assault and sexual harass1nent, and how 103

Megan E. Springate

to report violations. Those who have reported harassment and assault report that, generally, little is done in response (Clancy, 2013; Clancy et al., 2014; Meyers et al., 2015). Instead, wo1nen in archaeology have developed a "thick skin," tolerating a certain amount of sexual harass1nent and assault in the field, warning each other about particularly egregious perpetrators (Faulk, 2018). The pervasiveness of sexual assault and harass1nent and the lack of knowledge of how to report violations and lack of follow-up 1neans that people report high levels of job insecurity, uncertainty regarding the future of their careers, fear for their safety, and end up leaving the profession altogether (Clancy et al., 2014; Meyers et al., 2015; Nelson et al., 2017). In response to these studies, the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology (2014), the Society for Historical Archaeology (2015), and the Society for American Archaeology (2015) posted statements against sexual harassment and violence. In the 2018 conference program, the SAA included a statement that harassment of any form would not be tolerated. It also outlined that, should an incident occur, the SAA officers, Board of Directors, and session chairs should be considered safe authorities. During the conference, the SAA reported on their continued response to the problem (Gifford-Gonzalez, 2018). Organizational state1nents against harassment are important, but change 1nust also come from the field. Suggestions to minimize sexual assault and harassment in archaeology include clearly posted and discussed anti-harassment policies that include definitions of sexual assault and sexual harassment as well as clear reporting responsibilities and channels (in 1nany cases, targets and bystanders were unclear what "crossed the line" to harassment, or who to report to; Clancy, 2013; Muckle, 2014: 33). As places where archaeologists are trained in field 1nethods and socialized to field culture, field schools are excellent places to model and insist upon appropriate field behavior (Muckle, 2014).

Sexual violence Just as discussions of sex and sexuality have been taboo, so too have analyses of sexual violence in the archaeological record. This includes domestic and relationship violence, as well as coercive sexual relationships ranging from harassment to rape. In recent years, historical archaeologists have begun to talk about and engage with aspects of sexual violence in the past - an area of important research that will benefit from increased engagement. In her work, Black Feminist Archaeology,Whitney Battle-Baptiste (2011) incorporates the histories of sexual abuse, coercion, and rape of Black wo1nen (both enslaved and free) as part of her intersectional analysis; Sarah Croucher (2012) and Matthew Greer (2017) also examine sexual violence in the context of slavery. In patch towns associated with anthracite coal extraction in northeastern Pennsylvania, V. Camille West1nont and Mikaela Girard (2016) find 1naterial and docu1nentary evidence of domestic abuse and sexual violence. In non-household/non-do1nestic contexts, Andrea Delgado et al. (2016) look at the suffering - including physical and sexual assaults - experienced by undocumented Central Americans traveling clandestinely across Mexico to enter the United States, and Funari and de Carvalho (2012) connect the violence of enslavement and conquest in Brazil to current homophobic attacks and repression.

Essential gender and sexuality Western culture broadly views gender and sexuality as essential and static personal identities that are core to basic social distinctions including division of labor (Geller, 2009; Voss, 2009: 31). As described above, the work of Alfred Kinsey, the work of nu1nerous cultural 104

Archaeology of sexualities

anthropologists, the work of historians of sexuality, and others have demonstrated and described sexuality as culturally contingent and as malleable and changeable throughout a person's life course. Despite this, archaeology has a long history of treating a two-gender system and heterosexuality as natural, nor1nal, and essential states of being that require no interrogation. Gender archaeology, which began in the 1980s (Conkey, 1991; Gero, 1985; Spector, 1993), focused on the recovery of women's role in the past. This was an important advance in archaeology, but was limited in that it reified the idea that gender is binary and that "male" and "female" are universal categories (Sorensen 2007: 45-46). Also e1nbedded in this analysis was the heterosexist assumption that people in the past were necessarily heterosexual, and that the nuclear fa1nily was the ideal family structure (Dowson, 20006). Archaeologies of sexuality and queer archaeology have begun to productively challenge these assu1nptions - including that sex and gender are necessarily categories around which cultures are organized (see, for example, Geller, 2009; Hollimon, 2000, 2009; Prine, 2000). Work that focuses on sexual practices and identities that are non-normative or stig1natized - like sex for money, same-sex intimacies, multiple partners, etc. that fall near the periphery or outside of the Charmed Circle (Rubin, 1984) of a particular culture - have the potential to positively challenge heteronormativity, the patriarchy, and white supremacy. Katrina Eichner (2015a) problematizes the idea of heteronormativity by exposing that heterosexuality (often posited as a universal "nor1nal" against which queer identities are examined) is rarely perfor1ned in ways that align with its ideological ideal. Laurie Wilkie and Annelise Morrise (2015) further complicate the idea of heteronormativity by exposing its assumptions not only of heterosexuality but also of whiteness and middle class-ness. Fra1ning queerness as for white people, Naphtalie Jeanty (2015) looks at ho1nosocial relationships among African American Buffalo Soldiers, interrogating African A1nerican queer identities, both historic and modern. Christina Hodge (2017) engages with these ideas fro1n a slightly different perspective in her call to engage with the archaeology of colonial white male privilege, which includes ideologies around sex and sexuality. We must, however, re1nain vigilant in our research and analysis that by fra1ning these as "other" and non-normative we risk "tacitly contributing to the ideological naturalization of conjugal, monoga1nous, heterosexuality" (Voss, 2009: 30) as well as to the idea that gender and sexuality are necessarily primary criteria around which cultures organize. Dowson offers an additional level of critique, noting that as i1nportant as challenging the heterosexual history of hu1nanity is, we 1nust also look to the practices within our field that produce and reproduce heteronor1nativity, patriarchy, and white supre1nacy (Dowson, 2009: 291).

Materiality A pern1c1ous problem in the archaeology of sexualities has been seeing sexuality in the 1naterial record. How do we determine the range of sexualities present at a particular time and place? How do we identify material signatures of sexuality? What makes an assemblage of artifacts or a building queer? What makes the1n nor1native? What marks them as evidence or places of coerced sexual encounters? Or loving encounters? Or clandestine encounters? Or transactional encounters? How do we see where these categories overlap? Complicating these questions is that sexuality is not a static, essential characteristic. How, then, do we consider sexuality in a way that co1nparisons across time, culture, and space become possible (Casella and Voss, 2012: 1)? Sexualities are also often entangled with gender. For example, within the broad category of women who have sex with wo1nen in the twentieth-century

105

Megan E. Springate

United States there are several gender expressions, 1nany of which also encompass particular expressions of sexuality, including butch, fem1ne, stud, and genderqueer (Springate, 2019). Physical representations of sexual behavior (i.e. in sculpture, painting, 1nosaic, graffiti, film, photographs, or in writing) may seem obvious exa1nples of materially represented sexuality. However, the depiction or display of bodies and body parts (clothed or unclothed) is not necessarily sexual, and even explicit sexual imagery is not necessarily erotic (designed to be sexually arousing). In addition, we cannot assu1ne that the depictions of sexuality or sexual behavior necessarily reflect reality. They can be ritual, political, comical, aesthetic, or religious; the context of its production, including producer and audience, are critical to interpretation (Voss, 2008a: 321). Exa1nining sexual effects in societies helps address the problem of materialities. Pulling the focus outward, to how 1naterial objects are used to create, reinforce, and alter sexual cultural categories and power structures through, for example, commodification, commemoration, resistance, e1nbodiment, and racialization, puts us in more familiar disciplinary territory. We know how to explore these things across time and cultures using artifacts, structures, and other 1naterial remnants of the past (see, for example, Springate, 2019). The case studies presented in The Archaeologyef Colonialism demonstrate that "the material legacy and sexual effects of . . . intimate encounters create powerful signatures within the archaeological record - hidden transcripts that we are only now starting to recognize, appreciate, and interpret" (Casella and Voss, 2012: 9). Martin Hall (2012) proposes a 1nethodological approach to the materiality of sexuality that begins from the assumption that sexuality is a culturally contingent for1nation (2012: 324). Hall argues that the instability of sexuality and sexual effects lends itself to analysis along vectors, or as directions of movement along intersecting axes of normativity/transgressiveness and tangibility/intangibility. Thus, we can examine sexual effects by looking at their distribution a1nong the resulting four quadrants (Hall, 2012: 331-332): • • •

•

Transgressive and Intangible: the immaterial, verbal and non-verbal expressions that challenge a given dominant sexual order and gender relations; Transgressive and Tangible: material expressions of challenges to a given normative or dominant sexual order and gender relations; Normative and Intangible: the immaterial, verbal and non-verbal expressions (cultural mores, custo1ns, and statements) that assert the dominant sexual order and gender relations; and Normative and Tangible: material expressions of a society's do1ninant sexual order and normative sexual customs and gender relations.

Although not framed as such, like queer archaeology, this approach requires researchers to first interrogate and suspend their assumptions about normative categories, including those of gender and sexuality (Hall, 2012: 324). Historical archaeologists are increasingly engaging with the 1nateriality of sexuality in areas including sex work (Gensmer, 2012; Gensmer and Van Buren, 2016; Kruase, 2017; Luiz, 2017; Warner, 2015), the built environment (Crippen, 2016; Springate, 2018), sexuality as an identity (Blackmore and Crippen, Forthcoming; Porter-Lupu, 2018), and pregnancy and reproductive control via prevention of pregnancy and abortion (Carnevale et al., 2016; Jenkins, 2017; Kozub, 2018; Warner, 2015; Wilkie, 2003, 2013). Successful approaches incorporate intersectionality, queer archaeology, and embodi1nent. Much of this work has been presented at conferences, representing larger works in progress that are not 106

Archaeology of sexualities

yet published. Particularly noteworthy is work by Jamie Arjona (2017), who - using jook joints as exa1nples - examines how 1naterial environments can queer space, creating "disruptive intimacies" (Arjona, 2017); Shadreck Chirikure and Abigail Moffett (2016) focus on the multiple and shifting meanings that objects can have within a particular society by looking at the effects on material 1neanings as dayti1ne shifts to night in Sub-Saharan Africa; in Georgetown, DC, Jennifer Porter-Lupu (2018) explores the queerness of what are considered wo1nen's artifacts found at a site inhabited by two men, imagining the sensuality of an individual marking their queerness by wearing these items at home, or perhaps even hidden, in public; in Indiana, Gibson and VanderVeen (2013) connect condo1n tins and artifacts associated with the fight for woman suffrage in a discussion of how the fight for women's bodily and political autonomy were inextricably intertwined. Also noteworthy are the studies by historical archaeologists who are engaging with the materiality of sexual violence (see, for exa1nple, Croucher, 2012; Delgado et al., 2016; Funari and de Carvalho, 2012; Greer, 2017; Rubertone, 2012; West1nont and Girard 2016). Archaeology is not the only discipline interested in the materiality of sexuality. Angie Blumberg, from the perspective of English literature, looks at the writings of Vernon Lee and Oscar Wilde to explore how writers at the turn of the twentieth century "represented encounters with 1naterial artifacts of the past to facilitate the expression of queer identity and experience" (Blumberg, 2017). Other pieces of her work exa1nine how the "queer mysteries" of archaeology and the buried past - particularly in Egypt - were used to explore nonnormative desires and how archaeology was used by Victorian writers more broadly to explore gender, sexuality, 1naterial culture, aesthetics, and te1nporality (Blu1nberg, 2016, 2018).

Putting sexuality into sex work Studies of brothels began as part of the study of gender in archaeology - examples of singlegendered spaces and spaces of nineteenth-century female autono1ny. Among the earliest studies published was Donna Seifert's (1991) "Within Sight of the White House: The Archaeology of Working Women." Since then, there have been an increasing nu1nber of archaeological investigations of brothels and other places where fe1nale sex workers have made a living, including a themed issue of HistoricalArchaeology (Seifert, 2005) and a 2016 session at the Society for Historical Archaeology conference titled, "Streetwalkers, Fallen Doves, and Houses of Ill Fame: A Historical and Archaeological Discussion on Prostitution" (Fellows and Munns, 2016). Other recent work includes that by Dawdy and Weyhing (2008), Johnson (2014), Van Buren and Gensmer (2017), and Luiz (2018). Despite the development of the archaeology of sexuality as a field, many studies of prostitution have yet to engage directly with sex and sexuality, to consider the experiences of clients, and to examine both male sex workers and sex work beyond the brothel (Voss, 2008a: 326). They tend to focus instead on the women working in brothels, and on economic and class analysis relative to nearby non-commercial domestic households. Early interpretations noted the higher frequency of expensive dishes, foodstuffs, and clothing relative to other neighborhood domestic sites, with authors concluding that the economic status of women who were sex workers was higher than their neighbors (Voss, 2008a: 325-326). More recent work has challenged this interpretation, noting that the material remains from areas associated with patrons (expensive dishes, fancy foodstuffs) are distinct fro1n artifacts associated with the residential experiences of the women who lived and worked in these brothels (cheap foodstuffs and plain dishes, not 1nuch different from their neighbors) (Ketz 107

Megan E. Springate

et al., 2005; Meyer et al., 2005; Yamin, 2005). While this dichoto1ny has been interpreted as evidence of the exploitation of sex workers, it has also been examined as the creation of an illusion of domestic bliss for clients. In this context, brothels and sex work can be examined as examples of the labor of leisure, originally explored in the context of vacations (O'Donovan and Carroll, 2011; Springate, 2017; Wurst, 2011). This understudied area in historical archaeology looks at the "invisible" labor of working class individuals that creates leisure experiences for middle- and upper-class patrons. On a broader scale, it is an area of study that exposes the workings of capitalism itself (O'Donovan and Carroll 2011: 192; Wurst, 2011: 255). In recent years, the foci of the archaeology of sex work has begun to shift. Researchers are beginning to explicitly examine sensuality and sexuality in brothel spaces (Luiz, 2017, 2018), as well as the role of men as clients (Fellows, 2016; Warner, 2016) and as brothel owners (Kooistra, 2016). Recent work has also begun to consider sex work done outside of the brothel system (Keim, 2016; Munns, 2016).

Conclusion In 2009, Barbara Voss wrote that it was "perhaps premature to identify sexuality studies as a subdiscipline of archaeology in its own right" (Voss, 2009: 31). In the decade since, however, the field has 1natured around the concepts of sexual effects, intersectionality, and queer archaeology. Recent conference papers and a growing body of published literature indicate that the archaeology of sexualities and queer archaeology in historical archaeology continue to gain ground, and are poised to make important contributions to archaeology in general. Moving forward, however, we 1nust engage: with each other, with students, with the public, and across disciplinary boundaries. We must not be afraid or embarrassed to talk about sexuality, sexual effects, and sexual politics past and present. This work is already being done (Burkholder, 2015; Eichner, 2013; Kangas, 2014; Rodriguez, 2015; Springate, 2016), but must continue. I leave the last word to Barbara Voss: for better or for worse, archaeological evidence and interpretations are being mobilized as discursive resources in debates on public policy and human rights for sexual minorities. As always, the future is being constructed through perceptions of the past, and we are contributing to that process through our research, whether we intend to or not. . .. Whatever we are researching ... it is vital that we speak publicly and loudly about our research and our findings .... [to] respond in a chorus of voices that loudly speak against the essentializing of the past in service of the present (Voss, 2009: 34)

References Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology. 2014. ACUA: Statement on Harassment and Intimidation. https://acuaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/Statement-on-Harassment.pdf American Alliance of Museums. 2016. LGBTQ Alliance: Welcoming Guidelines for Museums. Arlington, VA: American Alliance of Museums. www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2017 /11/lgbtq_welcome_ guide.pdf Arjona, Jamie M. 2015 "Things that Queer: Disorienting Intimacies in Late Nineteenth Century Jooks." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco, CA.

108

Archaeology of sexualities

Arjona, Jamie M. 2017. "Homesick Blues: Excavating Crooked Intimacies in Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century JookJoints." HistoricalArchaeology51(1): 43-59. Arnold, Bettina. 2007. "Gender and Archaeological Mortuary Analysis." In Women in Antiquity: TheoreticalApproachesto Gender and Archaeology,edited by Sarah M. Nelson, 107-40. Lanham, MD: AltaMira. Baird, J.A. 2015. "On Reading the Material Culture of Ancient Sexual Labor." Helios 42(1): 163-75. Battle-Baptiste, Whitney. 2011. Black Feminist Archaeology.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast. Baum, Joel and Kim Westheimer. 2015. "Sex? Sexual Orientation? Gender Identity? Gender Expression?" Teaching Tolerance50: 34-38. www.tolerance.org/magazine/summer-2015/sex-sexualorientation-gender-identity-gender-expression Blackmore, Chelsea. 2011. "How to Queer the Past without Sex: Queer Theory, Feminisms and the Archaeology of Identity." Archaeologies7(1): 75-96. Blackmore, Chelsea. 2018. "Editorial." Queer Archaeology,January 31, 2018. https:/ /queerarchaeology. com/2018/01 /31/ editorial post/ Blackmore, Chelsea and Leslie Crippen. Forthcoming. "Queer Intersections: Sexuality, Race, and Strategic Essentialism in Historical Archaeology." HistoricalArchaeology. Blackmore, Chelsea, Leslie Drane, Richard Baldwin, and David Ellis. 2016. "Queering Fieldwork: Difference and Identity in Archaeological Practice." SAA ArchaeologicalRecord 16(1): 18-23. Blackmore, Chelsea and Dawn M. Rutecki. 2014. "Introducing the Queer Archaeology Interest Group: Who We Are and Why We Need Your Support." The SAA ArchaeologicalRecord 14(5): 18-19. Blackmore, Chelsea and Megan E. Springate. 2015. Session chairs, "Queering the Field: Archaeologies of Sexuality, Gender, and Beyond." Session at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco. Blumberg, Angie. 2016. "Lusty Dust: Wilde's 'The Sphinx' and the Fin-de-Siecle Queer Imaginary." Paper presented at Modernity and the Shock of the Ancient, TORCH: The Oxford Research Center in the Humanities, Ashmolean Museum: Oxford, UK June. Blumberg, Angie. 2017. "Strata of the Soul: The Queer Archaeologies of Vernon Lee and Oscar Wilde." Victoriographies: A Journal of Nineteenth-Century Writing, 1790-1914 7 (3): 239-56. Blumberg, Angie. 2018. "Victorian Literature and Archaeology: Contemporary Excavations." Literature Compass 15: 4. doi:10.1111/lic3.12444. Boellstorff, Tom. 2007. "Queer Studies in the House of Anthropology." Annual Review of Anthropology 36: 17-35. Brown, Elsa Barkley. 1992. '"What Has Happened Here': The Politics of Difference in Women's History and Feminist Politics." Feminist Studies 18(2): 295-312. Burkholder, Jo Ellen. 2015. "Teaching on the Down-Low: Presenting Queer Theory to a Broad Audience." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco, CA. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble:Feminism and the SubversionefIdentity. New York: Routledge. Campetti, Casey. 2015. "Out in the Field? Queer Archaeologists, Queer Archaeology, and CRM." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco, CA. Carnevale, Andrea, Denise McGuire, and Johanna Kelly. 2016. "Removes All Obstacles: Abortifacients in Nineteenth-Century Toronto and Beyond." InternationalJournal ef Historical Archaeology 20(4): 743-67. Casella, Eleanor Conlin. 2000a. Bulldaggers and Gentle Ladies: Archaeological Approaches to Female Homosexuality in Convict-Era Australia." In The Archaeologiesof Sexuality, edited by Robert A. Schmidt and Barbara L. Voss, 143-59. New York: Routledge. Casella, Eleanor Conlin. 2000b. "Doing Trade: A Sexual Economy of Nineteenth-Century Australian Female Convict Prisons." World Archaeology32(2): 209-21. Casella, Eleanor Conlin and Barbara L. Voss. 2012. "Intimate Encounters: An Archaeology of Sexualities within Colonial Worlds." In The Archaeology of Colonialism: Intimate Encounters and Sexual Effects, edited by Barbara L. Voss and Eleanor Conlin Casella, 1-10. New York: Oxford University Press. Chirikure, Shadreck and Abigail Joy Moffett. 2016. "Fluid Spaces and Fluid Objects: Nocturnal Material Culture in Sub-Saharan Africa with Special Reference to southern Africa." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Orlando, FL. Claassen, Cheryl. 2000. "Homophobia and Woman Archaeologists." World Archaeology32(2): 173-79. Clancy, Kate. 2013. "I Had No Power to Say That's Not Okay: Reports of Harassment and Abuse in the context-and-vari Field." Scient{ficAmerican, April 13, 2013. https:/ /blogs.scientificamerican.com/ ation/ safe13- field-site-chilly-climate-and-abuse/

109

Megan E. Springate

Clancy, Kathryn B. H., Robin G. Nelson, Julienne N. Rutherford, and Katie Hinde. 2014. "Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault." PLoS ONE 9(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102172 Combahee River Collective. 1977 [1997]. "A Black Feminist Statement." In The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory, edited by Linda Nicholson, 63-70. New York: Routledge. Conkey, Margaret W. 1991. "Does It Make a Difference? Feminist Thinking and Archaeologies of Gender." In The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedingsof the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference,edited by D. Walde and N. D. Willows, 24-33. University of Calgary: Chacmool Archaeological Association. Conkey, Margaret W. and Joan M. Gero. 1997. "Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology." Annual Review of Anthropology26(1): 411-37. Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics." University ef Chicago Legal Forum 1989: 139-67. Crippen, Leslie A. 2016. "Finding Our Place: Uncovering Queer Hidden Heritage in the US with the National Park Service." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Washington, DC. Croucher, Sarah K. 2012. ""A Concubine is Still a Slave': Sexual Relations and Omani Colonial Identities in Nineteenth-Century East Africa." In The Archaeologyof Colonialism: Intimate Encountersand Sexual Effects, edited by Barbara L. Voss and Eleanor Conlin Casella, 67-84. New York: Oxford University Press. Danis, Annie. 2016. "Making a Place in the Field: A Report from the First Queer Archaeology Interest Record 16(1): 37-40. Group Forum." SAA Archaeological Davies, Sharyn G. 2006. ChallengingGender Norms: Five GendersAmong Bugis in Indonesia.Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Dawdy, Shannon Lee and Richard Weyhing. 2008. "Beneath the Rising Sun: 'Frenchness' and the Archaeology of Desire." Internationaljournal if HistoricalArchaeology12: 370-87. Delgado, Andrea, Jason De Leon, Cameron Gokee, and Haeden Stewart. 2016. "En Las Vias: Suffering and Triage on the Central American Trail." Poster presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Orlando, FL. Dowson, Thomas, ed. 2000a. World Archaeology,32(2). Thematic issue on queer archaeology. World Archaeology 32(2): Dowson, Thomas. 2000b. "Why Queer Archaeology? An Introduction." 161-65. Dowson, Thomas. 2009. "Queer Theory Meets Archaeology: Disrupting Epistemological Privilege and Heteronormativity in Constructing the Past." In The Ashgate Companion to Queer Theory, edited by Noreen Giffney and Michael O'Rourke, 277-94. Farnham, UI{: Ashgate. Dubrow, Gail. 2019. "Taking Action: An Overview ofLGBTQ Preservation Initiatives." In Preservation and Place: Historic PreservationBy and Of LGBTQ Communities in the United States, edited by Katherine Crawford-Lackey and Megan E. Springate, 85-131. New York: Berghahn Books. Dylla, Emily, Sheena A. Ketchum, and Carol McDavid. 2016. "Listening More and Talking Less: On Record 16(1): 31-36. Being a Good Ally." SAA Archaeological Eichner, I{atrina. 2013. "Repacking the Risque: Public Response to the Archaeology of Sexuality." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Honolulu, HI. Eichner, I{atrina. 2015a. "Queering the Norm: Reinterpreting the Heterosexual Ideal." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Seattle, WA. Eichner, Katrina. 2015b. "Queering 'American': Archaeological Investigations of a 19th-Century Military Fort in West Texas." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco, CA. Eichner, Katrina. 2017. Session chair, Tales of the Texas Frontier: Research Conducted by the Fort Davis Archaeology Project (FODAAP) in Fort Davis, Texas. Fort Worth, TX: Annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology. Eichner, I{atrina and Erin Rodriguez. 2015. Session chairs, "Queering Historical Archaeology: Methods, Theory, and Practice." Annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Seattle, WA. Faulk, I{im, 2018. "Current Events: On Being Courageous." Advisory Council on UnderwaterArchaeology: Deep Thoughts, January 16, 2018. https:/ / acuaonline.org/ deep-thoughts/ current-events-on-beingcourageous/

110

Archaeology of sexualities

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 1993. "The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough." The Sciences, (March/ April): 20-25. Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2000. "The Five Sexes, Revisited." The SciencesOuly/ August): 18-23. Fellows, Kirstin R. 2016. "Homosocial Bonding in the Brothel: Analyzing Space and Material Culture through Documents." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Washington, DC. Fellows, Kirstin R. and Anna Munns. 2016. Session chairs, "Streetwalkers, Fallen Doves, and Houses of Ill Fame: An Historical and Archaeological Discussion on Prostitution." Annual meeting for the Society for historical Archaeology, Washington, DC. Fields, Shawn and Jamie Arjona. 2016. "A Chained Melody: Queering Ceramic Industries in 19th Century South Carolina." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Orlando, FL. Flexner, Eleanor. 1959. Century efStruggle:The Woman's Rights Movement in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Foucault, Michel. 1976. Histoire de la sexualite, Vo/ 1. Translation by Robert Hurley. France: Gallimard. Funari, Pedro Paulo A. and Aline Viera de Carvalho. 2012. "Gender Relations in a Maroon Community, Palmares, Brazil." In The Archaeologyef Colonialism:Intimate Encountersand Sexual Effects, eds Barbara L. Voss and Eleanor Conlin Casella, 252-70. New York: Cambridge University Press. Garraffoni, Renata S. 2012. "Reading Gladiators' Epitaphs and Rethinking Violence and Masculinity in the Roman Empire." In The Archaeologyof Colonialism:Intimate Encountersand Sexual Effects, edited by Barbara L. Voss and Eleanor Conlin Casella, 214-31. New York: Cambridge University Press. Geller, Pamela L. 2009. "Bodyscapes, Biology, and Heteronormativity." American Anthropologist 111: 504-16. Gensmer, Kristin A. 2012. Of Painted Women and Patrons: An Analysis of Personal Items and Identity at a Victorian-Era Red Light District in Ouray, Colorado. Masters thesis, Colorado State University. Available online from Colorado State University: https:/ /mountainscholar.org/handle/10217 /68104 Gensmer, I{ristin A. and Mary Van Buren. 2016. "Painted Women and Patrons: Appearance and the Construction of Gender and Class Identity in the Red Light District ofOuray, Colorado." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Washington, DC. Gero, Joan M. 1985. "Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology." American Antiquity 50(2): 342-50. Gibson, Rebecca and James M. VanderVeen. 2013. "Control of Their Bodies, Control of Their Votes: Pins and Prophylactics Tell the Sufragette Story." Indiana Archaeology8(1): 56-71. Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane. 2018. "SAA's Efforts to Create a More Inclusive Climate: Educating to Prevent Sexually Motivated and Other Forms of Harassment and Violence." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC. Gilchrist, Roberta. 2000. "Unsexing the Body: The Interior Sexuality of Medieval Religious Women." In The Archaeologiesef Sexuality, edited by Robert A. Schmidt and Barbara L. Voss, 89-103. New York: Routledge. Godbeer, Richard. 2004. Sexual Revolution in Early America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Greer, Matthew C. 2017. "Starting Over After Being Taken Away: Enslaved Women, Forced Relocation, and Sexual Relationships in Antebellum Virginia." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Fort Worth, TX. Halberstam, Judith. 1998. FemaleMasculinity.Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Halberstam, Judith. 2005. In a Queer Time and Place: TransgenderBodies, Subcultural Lives. New York: New York University Press. Hall, Martin. 2012. "Sexuality and Materiality: The Challenge of Method." In The ArchaeologyefColonialism: Intimate Encountersand Sexual Effects, edited by Barbara L. Voss and Eleanor Conlin Casella, 323-40. New York: Cambridge University Press. Halperin, David M. 1995. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. New York: Oxford University Press. Heinz, Danielle. 2017. "Built on Sand: The Historical Roots of Modern Queerphobia within Christianity." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver. Hernandez, Carla. 2018. "Queer in the Field." Queer Archaeology,February 21, 2018. https:/ /queerarch aeology .com/2018/02/21 / queer-in-the-field/

111

Megan E. Springate

Hodge, Christina. 2017. "An Intersectional Archaeology of Colonial White Male Privilege?" Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver. Hollimon, Sandra. 1997. "The Third Gender in Native California: Two-Spirit Undertakers among the Chumash and Their Neighbors." In Women in Prehistory in North America and Mesoamerica, edited by Cheryl Claassen and Rosemary A. Joyce, 173-88. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hollimon, Sandra. 2000. "Archaeology of the 'Aqi: Gender and Sexuality in Prehistoric Chumash Society." In Archaeologiesef Sexuality, edited by Robert A. Schmidt and Barbara L. Voss, 176-96. New York: Routledge. Hollimon, Sandra. 2009. "Examining Third and Fourth Genders in Mortuary Contexts." In Que(e)rying Archaeology,edited by Susan Terendy, Natasha Lyons, and Michelle Janse-Smekal, 171-75. Calgary: Chacmool Archaeological Association. Iadanza, Lisa A. 2017. Session chair, "Gender and Queer Studies." Annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Fort Worth, TX. Intersex Society of North America. 2008. "How Common Is Intersex?" www.isna.org/faq/frequency Jeanty, Naphtalie. 2015. "Queerness Is for White People: The Effects of the Idea of African American Sexual Deviancy among 19th Century Buffalo Soldiers." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Washington, DC. Jenkins, Tracy H. 2017. "An Intersectional Archaeology ofWomen's Reproductive Rights." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Fort Worth, TX. Johnson, Amanda. 2014. "Behind Closed Doors: An Introduction and Case Study from a 19th Century Boston Brothel." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Quebec City. Joyce, Rosemary A. 2000. "A Precolumbian Gaze: Male Sexuality Among the Ancient Maya." In Archaeologies ef Sexuality, edited by Robert A. Schmidt and Barbara L. Voss, 263-86. New York: Routledge. Joyce, Rosemary A. 2004. "Embodied Subjectivity: Gender, Femininity, Masculinity, Sexuality." In A Companion to SocialArchaeology,edited by Lynn Meskell and Robert W. Preucel, 82-95. Oxford, UI{: Blackwell. Joyce, Rosemary A. 2008. Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives: Sex, Gender, and Archaeology.New York: Thames & Hudson. Kangas, Rachael. 2014. "It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Public Engagement! One Summer Library Program as an Effective Outreach Platform." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Orlando, FL. Ketz, K. Anne, Elizabeth J.Abel, and Andrew J. Schmidt. 2005. "Public Image and Private Reality: An Analysis of Differentiation in a Nineteenth-Century St. Paul Bordello." HistoricalArchaeology39(1): 74-88. Keim, Alexander D. 2016. "Sex Workers in the City: Presentation and Interaction in 19th Century Boston's Urban Landscape." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Washington, DC. Kessler-Harris, Alice. 2003. Out to Work: A History efAmerica's Wage-Earning Women. 20th Anniversary Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Kessler-Harris, Alice. 2007. GenderingLaborHistory. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kilgrove, Kristina. 2017. "Is That Skeleton Gay? The Problem with Projecting Modern Ideas Onto the /04/08/is-that-skeletonPast." Forbes,April 8, 2017. www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2017 gay-the-problem-with-projecting-modern-ideas-onto-the-past/#7 cdca 7 c30e 7 a Kinsey, Alfred C., Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin. 1948. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders. Kinsey, Alfred C. and the Institute for Sex Research. 1953. Sexual Behaviorin the Human Female.Philadelphia, PA: Saunders. Kirkpatrick, R. C. 2000. "The Evolution of Human Homosexual Behavior." CurrentAnthropology41(3): 385-413. Klembara, Nathan. 2018. "Hey, I Have a Question." Queer Archaeology,February 7, 2018. https:/ /queer archaeology.com/2018/02/07 /hey-i-have-a-question/ Kooistra, Anne Marie. 2016. "The Enterprising Career of Tom Savage in Los Angeles' Red-Light District." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Washington, DC.

112

Archaeology of sexualities

Kozub, Andrea Zlotucha. 2018. "'To Married Ladies It Is Peculiarly Suited': Nineteenth-Century Abortion in an Archaeological Context." HistoricalArchaeologydoi: 10 .1007 / s41636-018-0097-8. Kruase, Grace A. 2017. '"Oysters in Every Style': Food and Commercial Sex on the New Orleans Landscape." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, LA. Lavrin, Asuncion. 2010. "Sexuality in Colonial Spanish America." In The Oxford Handbook ef Latin American History, edited by Jose C. Moya, 132-52. New York: Oxford University Press. Lopez-Bertran, Mireia. 2012. "The Politics of Reproduction, Rituals, and Sex in Punic Eivissa." In The ArchaeologyefColonialism:Intimate Encountersand Sexual Effects, edited by Barbara L. Voss and Eleanor Conlin Casella, 85-104. New York: Cambridge University Press. Luiz, Jade W. 2014. Session organizer, "Behind Closed Doors: Exploring Taboo Subjects in Historical Archaeology." Annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Quebec City. Luiz, Jade W. 2017. "Clandestine, Ephemeral, Anonymous? Myths and Actualities of the Intimate Economy of a 19th-Century Boston Brothel." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Fort Worth, TX. Luiz, Jade W. 2018. "Wares of Venus: The Sensoriality of Sex for Purchase at a 19th Century Boston Brothel." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, LA. Marshall, Yvonne, Sasha Roseneil, and Kayt Armstrong. 2009. "Situating the Greenham Archaeology: An Autoethnography of a Feminist Project." PublicArchaeology8(2): 225-45. Mays, Simon and Margaret Cox. 2000. "Sex Determination in Skeletal Remains." In Human Osteology: In Archaeologyand ForensicScience,edited by Margaret Cox and Simon Mays, 117-30. London: Greenwich Medical Media. McComb, Angela. 2018. "My Queer Superpower." Queer Archaeology,March 28, 2018. https:/ /queer archaeology.com/2018/03/28/my-queer-superpower/ McComb, Angela A. and Nathan IZlembara. 2018. "Blood, Sweat, and Queers: Roller Derby and Queer Heritage." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, New Orleans, LA. McI{enna, Josephine. 2017. "Embracing Figures at Pompeii 'Could Have Been Gay Lovers', After Scan /04/ Reveals They Are Both Men." The Telegraph,April 7, 2017. www.telegraph.eo.uk/news/2017 07 I embracing- figures-pompeii-could-have-gay-lovers-scan-reveals/ Meskell, Lynn. 2000. "Re-Em(bed)ding Sex: Domesticity, Sexuality, and Ritual in New Kingdom Egypt." In Archaeologiesef Sexuality, edited by Robert A. Schmidt and Barbara L. Voss, 253-62. New York: Routledge. Meyer, Michael D., Erica S. Gibson, and Julia G. Costello. 2005. "City of Angels, City of Sin: Archaeology in the Los Angeles Red-Light District ea. 1900." HistoricalArchaeology39(1): 107-25. Meyers, Maureen, Tony Boudreax, Stephen Carmody, Victoria Dekle, Elizabeth Horton, and Alice Wright. 2015. "Preliminary Results of the SEAC Sexual Harassment Survey." Horizon & Tradition: The Newsletterefthe SoutheasternArchaeologicalConference57(1): 19-35. Muckle, Robert]. 2014. "On Sexual Harassment and Abuse in Archaeology." SAA ArchaeologicalRecord 14(5): 32-33. Munns, Anna M. 2016. "The Legal Language of Sex: Interpreting a Hierarchy of Prostitution Using the Terminology of Criminal Charges." Paper presented at the annual conference for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Washington, DC. Munoz, Jose Esteban. 1999. Disident[fications:Queers ef Co/or and the Peiformanceof Politics.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Nanda, Serena. 2014. GenderDiversity: CrossculturalVariations.Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Nelson, Robin G., Junienne N. Rutherford, I{atie Hinde, and I{athryn B. H. Clancy. 2017. "Signaling Safety: Characterizing Fieldwork Experiences and Their Implications for Career Trajectories." American Anthropologist119(4): 710-22. O'Donovan, Maria, and Lynda Carroll. 2011. "Going Places: The Historical Archaeology of Travel and Tourism." Internationaljournal efHistoricalArchaeology15(2): 191-93. Perry, Elizabeth M. and Rosemary Joyce. 2001. "Providing a Past for 'Bodies that Matter': Judith Butler's Impact on the Archaeology of Gender." International JournalefGenderand Sexuality Studies6(1 /2): 63- 7 6. Porter-Lupu, Jennifer. 2018. "Performing a Queer Aesthetic in Early 20th Century Washington: Preliminary Findings from the Halcyon House Site." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.

113

Megan E. Springate

Posadas, Lylliam. 2015. "We Want In On This: Contemporary Queer Archaeology and the Preservation of Queer Cultural History." Poster presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco, CA. Prentiss, Anna Marie. 2018. "No One Noticed? Doing Archaeology for the First Time as Anna." Queer Archaeology, March 14, 2018. https:/ / queerarchaeology.com/2018/03/14/no-one-noticed-doingarchaeology-for-the-first-time-as-anna/ Prine, Elizabeth. 1997. The Ethnography of Place: Landscape and Culture in Middle Missouri Archaeology." PhD diss., University of California Berkeley. Prine, Elizabeth. 2000. "Searching for Third Genders: Towards a Prehistory of Domestic Space in Middle Missouri Villages." In The ArchaeologiesefSexuality, edited by Robert A. Schmidt and Barbara L. Voss, 197-210. New York: Routledge. Public Broadcasting System (PBS). 2015. A Map of Gender-Diverse Cultures. Independent Lens. August 11, 2015. www.pbs.org/independentlens/ content/two-spirits_map-html/ Rodriguez, Erin C. 2015. "A Multiplicity of Voices: Towards a Queer Field School Pedagogy." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Seattle, WA. Roscoe, Will. 2019. "Sexual and Gender Diversity in Native America and the Pacific Islands." In Preservation and Place:Historic PreservationBy and Of LGBTQ Communities in the United States, edited by Katherine Crawford-Lackey and Megan E. Springate, 58-88. New York: Berghahn Books. Rubertone, Patricia E. 2012. "Monuments and Sexual Politics in New England Indian Country." In The ArchaeologyefColonialism:Intimate Encountersand Sexual Effects, edited by Barbara L. Voss and Eleanor Conlin Casella, 232-51. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rubin, Gayle S. 1975. "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'Political Economy of Sex."' In Toward an AnthropologyefWomen, edited by Rayna Reiter, 157-210. New York: Monthly Review Press. Rubin, Gayle S. 1984. "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality." In Culture, Society and Sexuality: A Reader, edited by Richard Parker and Peter Aggleton, 143-71. New York: Routledge. Rubin, Gayle S. 2000. "Sites, Settlements, and Urban Sex: Archaeology and the Study of Gay Leathermen in San Francisco 1955-1995." In Archaeologiesef Sexuality, edited by Robert Schmidt and Barbara Voss, 62-88. New York: Routledge. Rush, Jamison. 2017. "A Queer Reframing of Gendered Archaeological Theory." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver. Rutecki, Dawn and Chelsea Blackmore, eds. 2016. "Special Section: Towards an Inclusive Queer Archaeology." Societyfor AmericanArchaeologySAA Record 16(1): 9-39. Ryan, Mary P. 1981. Cradle ef the Middle Class: The Family in Oneida County, New York, 1790-1865. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sandoval, Chela. 1991. "US Third World Feminism: The Theory and Method of Oppositional Consciousness in the Postmodern World." Genders 10: 1-24. Schmidt, Robert A. 2000. "Shamans and Northern Cosmology: The Direct Historical Approach to Mesolithic Sexuality." In The Archaeologiesof Sexuality, edited by Robert A. Schmidt and Barbara L. Voss, 220-35. New York: Routledge. Schmidt, Robert A. and Barbara L. Voss, eds. 2000. The Archaeologiesof Sexuality, New York: Routledge. Schofield, John and Mike Anderton. 2000. "The Queer Archaeology of Green Gate: Interpreting Contested Space at Greenham Common Airbase." World Archaeology32(2): 236-51. Sedgwick, Eve I{osofsky. 1990. Epistemologyefthe Closet. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Seifert, Donna J. 1991. "Within Sight of the White House: The Archaeology of Working Women." HistoricalArchaeology24(4): 82-108. Seifert, Donna]. ed. 2005. "Archaeology in Sin City." Theme issue of HistoricalArchaeology39(1). She. 2000. "Sex and a Career." World Archaeology32(2): 166-72. Society for American Archaeology. 2015. Statement on Sexual Harassment and Violence. www.saa.org/ Portals/0/SAA_Statement_FINAL.pdf Society for Historical Archaeology. 2015. SHA Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Policy. https:/ / sha.org/ about-us/ sha-sexual-harassment-discrimination-policy / Sofaer, Joanna and Marie Stig Sorensen. 2013. "Death and Gender." In The Oxford Handbook ef the ArchaeologyefDeath and Burial, edited by Sarah Tarlow and Liv Nilsson Stutz, 527-42. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

114

Archaeology of sexualities

Sorensen, Marie Louise Stig. 2007. "On Gender Negotiation and Its Materiality." In Archaeologyand Women: Ancient and Modern Issues, edited by Sue Hamilton, Ruth D. Whitehouse, and Katherine I. Wright, 41-54. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Sousa, Lisa. 2017. The Woman vVho Turned into a Jaguar, and Other NarrativesefNative Women in Archives of ColonialMexico. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Spector, Janet. 1993. vVhat This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeologyat a Wahpeton Dakota Village. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In Marxism and the Interpretationef Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271-313. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Springate, Megan E. 2014. Panel organizer, "Queer Forum: Queer Scholarship and Queer Experience." Annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Quebec City. Springate, Megan E. 2016. "Archaeology? How Does That Work? Incorporating Archaeology into the National Park Service LGBTQ Heritage Initiative as Community Engagement." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Washington, DC. Springate, Megan E. 2017. Respectable Holidays: The Archaeology of Capitalism and Identities at the Crosbyside Hotel (c. 1870-1902) and Wiawaka Holiday House (mid-1910s-1929), Lake George, New York. PhD diss., Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland College Park. Springate, Megan E. 2018. "A Queer Look at a Changing Vacation Landscape: Respectability and Resistance." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC. Springate, Megan E. 2019. "Beyond Identity: An LGBTQ Archaeological Context." In Preservationand Place: Historic Preservation By and Of LGBTQ Communities in the United States, edited by Katherine Crawford-Lackey and Megan E. Springate, 132-67. New York: Berghahn Books. Stansell, Christine. 1982. City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789-1860. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Stoler, Ann Laura. 2001. "Tense and Tender Ties: The Politics of Comparison in North American History and (Post) Colonial Studies." Thejournal efAmericanHistory 88(3): 829-65. Stryker, Susan. 2019. "Transgender History in the United States and the Places That Matter." In Preservation and Place: Historic PreservationBy and Of LGBTQ Communities in the United States, edited by Katherine Crawford-Lackey and Megan E. Springate, 89-129. New York: Berghahn Books. The Telegraph.2011. "First Homosexual Caveman Found." The Telegraph,April 6, 2011. www.telegraph. co. uk/ news/ newstopics/howaboutthat/ 84 33 527 /First-homosexual-caveman-found.html Terendy, Susan, Natasha Lyons, and Michelle Janse-Smekal, eds. 2009. Que(e)ryingArchaeology:Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Chacmool Conference,University of Calgary, Calgary: Chacmool Archaeological Association. Tortorici, Zeb, ed. 2016. Sexuality and the Unnatural in Colonial Latin America, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Truth, Sojourner. 1851. "Ain't I A Woman." Speech delivered December 1851 at the Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio. Van Buren, Mary and Kristin A. Gensmer. 2017. "Crib Girls and Clients in the Red-Light District of Ouray, Colorado: Class, Gender, and Dress." HistoricalArchaeology51(2): 218-39. Voss, Barbara L. 2000. "Feminisms, Queer Theories, and the Archaeological Study of Past Sexualities." World Archaeology32(2): 180-92. Voss, Barbara L. 2005. "Sexual Subjects: Identity and Taxonomy in Archaeological Research." In Archaeology ef Plural and Changing Identities: Beyond Identification, edited by Eleanor C. Casella and Chris Fowler, 55-77. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. Voss, Barbara L. 2007. "Sexuality in Archaeology." In Identity and Subsistence:Gender Strategiesfor Archaeology, edited by Sarah Milledge Nelson, 33-68. New York: AltaMira. Voss, Barbara L. 2008a. "Sexuality Studies in Archaeology." Annual Review of Anthropology37: 317-36. Voss, Barbara L. 2008b. The ArchaeologyefEthnogenesis:Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Voss, Barbara L. 2009. "Looking for Gender, Finding Sexuality: A Queer Politic of Archaeology, Fifteen Years Later." In Que(e)ryingArchaeology:Proceedingsof the Thirty-Seventh Annual Chacmool Conference, University ef Calgary, edited by Susan Terendy, Natasha Lyons, and Michelle Janse-Smekal, 29-39. Calgary: The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.

115

Megan E. Springate

Voss, Barbara L. 2012. "Sexual Effects: Postcolonial and Queer Perspectives on the Archaeology of Sexuality and Empire." In The Archaeologyef Colonialism:Intimate Encountersand Sexual Effects, edited by Barbara L. Voss and Eleanor Conlin Casella, 11-20. New York: Oxford University Press. Voss, Barbara L. and Eleanor Conlin Casella. 2012. The Archaeologyof Colonialism:Intimate Encountersand Sexual Effects. New York: Oxford University Press. Voss, Barbara L. and Robert A. Schmidt. 2000. "Archaeologies of Sexuality: An Introduction." In Archaeologiesef Sexuality, edited by Robert A. Schmidt and Barbara L. Voss, 1-34. New York: Routledge. Voutaski, S. 2010. "Agency and Personhood at the Onset of the Mycenaean Period." ArchaeologicalDialogues17(1): 65-92. Walley, Meghan. 2017a. Session chair, "Mobilizing the Past: Archaeology as Activism." Annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver. Walley, Meghan. 20176. "Queering the Inuit Past: Archaeology as LGBTQ Allyship." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver. Warner, Mark S. 2015. "Class and Reproductive Control: Birth Control Access and Hygiene among Prostitutes in Turn-of-the-Century Northern Idaho." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco, CA. Warner, Mark S. 2016. "A WEAK MAN can now cure himself ... : Exploring Sandpoint, Idaho Brothels as Alternative Venues for Treatment of 'Private Diseases of Men' and Other Afflictions." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Washington, DC. Weismantel, Mary. 2012. "Obstinate Things." In The Archaeologyof Colonialism:Intimate Encountersand Sexual Effects, edited by Barbara L. Voss and Eleanor Conlin Casella, 303-22. New York: Cambridge University Press. Weiss, Lindsay. 2012. "The Currency of Intimacy: Transformations of the Domestic Sphere on the LateNineteenth Century Diamond Fields." In The Archaeologyof Colonialism:Intimate Encountersand Sexual Effects, edited by Barbara L. Voss and Eleanor Conlin Casella, 49-66. New York: Cambridge University Press. Westmont, V. Camille and Mikaela Girard. 2016. "Confronting Uncomfortable Pasts: Gender and Domestic Violence in Pennsylvania Company Towns, 1850 to Present." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Washington, DC. White, William A. 2017. "#metoo in Cultural Resource Management Archaeology." SuccinctResearch, November 10, 2017. www.succinctresearch.com/ metoo-in-cultural-resource-managementarchaeology / Wilkie, Laurie A. 2003. The Archaeologyef Mothering: An African-AmericanMidwife's Tale. New York: Routledge. Wilkie, Laurie A. 2013. "Expelling Frogs and Binding Babies: Conception, Gestation and Birth in Nineteenth-Century African-American Midwifery." World Archaeology45(2): 272-84. Wilkie, Laurie A. and Annelise E. Morris. 2015. "All the Single Ladies: Queering Race in the 19th Century through the Materiality of African-American Female-Headed Households." Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Historical Archaeology, Seattle, WA. Wright, Rita P. 2008. "Sexual Harassment and Professional Ethics." SAA ArchaeologicalRecord 8(4): 27-30. Wurst, LouAnn. 2011. '"Human Accumulations': Class and Tourism at Niagara Falls." Internationaljournal if HistoricalArchaeology15(2): 254-66. Wylie, Alison. 2008. "The Integrity of Narratives: Deliberative Practice, Pluralism, and Multivocality." In Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies,edited by Junko Habu et al., 201-12. New York: Springer. Yamin, Rebecca. 2005. "Wealthy, Free, and Female: Prostitution in Nineteenth-Century New York." HistoricalArchaeology39(1): 4-18.

116

7 CAPITALISM AND GLOBALIZATION Jonathan Prangnell

Capitalism is the raison d'etre of historical archaeology. In the 1970s James Deetz classically defined historical archaeology as "the archaeology of the spread of European culture throughout the world since the fifteenth century and its impact on indigenous people" (Deetz 1977: 5). Although Deetz's definition has been criticized for its Eurocentric viewpoint and did not directly refer to capitalis1n per se, it is not possible to study the history of the past 500 years and the spread of Europeans and interactions with indigenous peoples without investigating capitalism and globalization. Europeans took capitalism with them everywhere they went and it has come to dominate the world. The expressions of, and reasons for, the development and persistence of capitalis1n is "one of hu1nankind's big questions" (Kepecs 2014: 1140). Historical archaeologists seek to answer the question "why is today's world the way it is?" (Orser 2017: 313). The short answer is that the modern world is a capitalist world. Capitalism is an economic and social system based on the private ownership of property. It is predicated on a division of society into those that provide the capital and those that provide the labour. The essential feature of capitalism is that it is a mode of production based on capital in which capitalists provide the means of production and make profits by appropriating the surplus value of the labour. Labour becomes co1nmodified and this exchange of labour for wages occurs in the marketplace. Although the idea of the market occurs in other for1ns of social and econo1nic organization Gohnson 1996: 7) it is central to capitalis1n. The market is the place where we sell our labour but it also the place where we purchase goods and services. So, the commodities produced by the workers are then sold to the workers. In this marketplace there are buyers and sellers of labour and commodities. There are also winners and losers. Jahan and Mahmud (2015) identify six "pillars" upon which capitalism is based. These "pillars" represent an expression of the ideology of capitalism, particularly that all individuals are free to make self-interested choices. These "pillars" are: 1.

the private ownership of tangible (e.g. land, buildings, inventory) and intangible (e.g. stocks, bonds, trademarks) assets. This involves a process of commoditization in which everything is transfor1ned into "items for exchange" (Mrozowski 2014: 345); 117

Jonathan Prangnell

2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

self-interest, in which people act rationally for their own good disregarding social and political pressures. In part this relates to the develop1nent of the individual in modernity which Matthews (2010: 10) describes as the "lone individual, constructed as unencumbered and free in the context of capitalism"; competition between companies 1naximizes the social welfare of both the producers and the consumers; the market determines prices for both goods and wages; the freedo1n to choose where to invest, what to produce, what to consume and where to work; and that there is only a limited role for the government to protect the rights of citizens and to provide the environ1nent within which markets can operate. This can be seen in the role of the state in defining property rights, and state interventions on capitalist investments for social, environ1nental or nationalistic reasons. It is this sixth "pillar" that is the major difference between classical liberalis1n and neoliberalis1n. In classical liberalism there was no role for the govern1nent at all. N eoliberals expect the government to provide "a fixed, neutral, universal legal framework within which market forces operate spontaneously" (Metcalf 2017). Of course, through schooling and higher education governments also absorb the costs of educating and skilling the workforce, and doing much of the research and development. Governments also pay for the transport infrastructure and pay for the defence and investment protection of capitalists (Papandreou 1972).

Capitalism is far more than the economic syste1n of the modern world. Over the past 500 years it has become entangled in all aspects of everyday life Gohnson 1996: 9). Although Orser (2014: 30) criticizes 1nany historical archaeologists for using the term "capitalist culture" to describe this all-encompassing character of living in a capitalist world, arguing that the label "naturalizes the economics and mystifies the practices", the nature of capitalism is such that it beco1nes part of all aspects of life. Orser prefers the term "capitalist project" (see also Leone and Knauf (2015: 5)) to describe the way "capitalism structures all aspects of social relations in a totalizing way" (Wurst 2016: 390) such that the concept of the 1narket becomes reified and natural and 1nembers of a culture cannot even imagine other possibilities. At the core of neoliberalism is a belief in a universal market that controls all aspects of labour and consumer choice and, most importantly, the primacy of the individual to make choices in that market. Basically it is a belief that "competition is the only legiti1nate organizing principle for human activity" (Metcalf 2017). Historical archaeologists of capitalism live and work within this neoliberal, capitalist system and in their research tend to e1nphasize social relations and local and small-scale instances of the development of capitalism, or resistance to it, in order to avoid essentializing and uncritically constructing it.

World systems Thanks to Wallerstein's world systems theory capitalism is often perceived by historical archaeologists as a core and periphery with Europe at the core and the colonies on the periphery. Wallerstein (2007) explained that the capitalist world system developed in Europe in the sixteenth century and spread capitalism throughout the world through the colonialist activities of Europeans. In this global system commodities and people continually circulate with the core controlling the production of raw materials and staples in the periphery, and the supply of manufactured goods back from Europe, while extracting a surplus fro1n the 118

Capitalism and globalization

periphery. The periphery does not determine its own economic output, rather it is dictated primarily by de1nand from the core. This approach tends, however, to homogenize the colonies and sees no local differences although Phillipi (2011: 201) claims, in his exa1nination of the agency of the peripheralized Mohawk that world systems theory can be particularly useful when examining colonial contact because it "puts global economic practice into . ". perspective This approach does not just ho1nogenize the periphery but also the core. Europe, however, is not one single capitalist/ colonialist entity. Europe was the centre of the British, Dutch (following independence from Spain at the end of the 80 Years War), French, Portuguese and Spanish empires, with the Ottoman Empire as an external arena on the periphery. These were joined after the middle of the nineteenth century by post-unification German and Italian imperial programmes. The militaristic, religious and social organization of each of these e1npires was quite different along with the ways they interacted with the indigenous inhabitants of their colonies, extracted raw 1naterials and exported different co1nmodities back to the core. The only unifying factor in the core was capitalism itself In addition, there were cores and peripheries within Europe, and people and commodities continually 1noved within the region (Mehler 2013). Carroll (2000) analyses changes in cera1nic production in Anatolia in the nineteenth centuries noting that increasing industrial capitalism has been interpreted as occurring as a result of the integration of the Ottoman Empire into the world system which changed labour practices and social organization. The e1npire provided a source of cheap labour and raw materials for European capitalists. Although, as Carroll states, not all economic activity followed this model, not all social organization changed, and not all the changes that did occur were the result of integration into the world system. In fact, in Wallerstein's (1974) ter1ns the Otto1nan Empire was an external arena to the capitalist world syste1n and in 1nany ways maintained its own political control over its econo1nic output, although Fenwick (2013: 218-228) argues that as early as the sixteenth century the nascent European capitalist world econo1ny was gaining economic control of the main Ottoman agricultural lands. Historical archaeology can be used to tease out these nuanced variations in the local responses to the arrival and establishment of capitalism. Historical archaeologists have repeatedly de1nonstrated the ability to investigate the distinctly local trajectories of capitalism, particularly in the peripheries (e.g. Groover 2005; Pouryan 2017; Zeischka-Kenzler 2017). For instance, Gaitan-Ammann's (2011) study of the "atypical" expression of capitalis1n in late-nineteenth-century Bogota, Colu1nbia, demonstrates that the capitalist elites that emerged following the breakdown of the Spanish e1npire used colonial and traditional social orders to consolidate their own power. This meant that atypically an industrialized capitalist working class did not develop in these places. In fact, in these newly emerging South American republics a clear distinction developed between 1nodernizing capitalist urban centres, such as Bogata, and their own localized rural peripheries. This capitalist dynamic acted to keep "early postcolonial societies stranded in the periphery of the capitalist world, despite the fact that from the standpoint of 1naterial consu1nption, they were wholly immersed in the global 1nodern order" (Gaitan-A1nmann 2011: 160). Likewise, Flexner, Jones and Evans' (2015) study of the Lenakel Methodist church on the island of Tanna in Vanuatu demonstrates the creation of localized nonEuropean cores interacting with their own peripheries. In this case the church building was prefabricated in Sydney, Australia, in 1912 and exported to Vanuatu. This is an extension of a trade practice that saw early Australian buildings prefabricated in England and exported to Australia. Prefabrication was a major development in the globalization of housing as it allowed for the 1nass production and export of standardized buildings (Flexner et al. 2015: 119

Jonathan Prangnell

266). The standardization of all 1naterial culture and practices has played a 1najor part in the increased speed of globalization experienced in the twentieth century (Graves-Brown 2013: 252). These case studies demonstrate the necessity for historical archaeologists to work at 1nultiple scales of analysis. Historical archaeology has a "unique ability to tap into powerful relational 1nove1nents between people, objects, and landscapes" (Dawdy 2013: 262). This harks back to Orser's (1996) much quoted "dig local/think global" as the local is always embedded in 1nultiple relationships with the global. Connections at any point in time and space are diverse, fluid, relative and dependent on local socio-political patterns and traditions (Ballantyne 2014a). The global 1nove1nent of people, information and objects involves "complex linkages" (Gerritsen and Riello 2016: 16; also Ballantyne 2014b: 18) between spaces that have the potential to break down at any point in time (Bright and Geyer 2012: 288) and to change the meaning of objects as they move from one space to another. These local/ global connections can be seen as a continuum "that extends from the household to the various interlinked, intra- and transcontinental networks of [relational] interactions" (Orser 2010: 117) although Marston (2000) argues that the points on this continuum are all in themselves socially constructed and would not have any fixed location or meaning. Importantly, though, any local site is going to be linked into numerous dynamic local, regional, national and international webs of connection, movement and exchange (Casella 2013: 90-91) at any number of various scales. Historical archaeologists often negotiate these continua by adopting various network theories such as social network analysis or small world networks (see Brugh1nans (2013) or Collar et al. (2015) for descriptions of these various methods). Casella (2013: 92) promotes the use of actor network theory to interpret how these "simultaneous connections define and shape the social/material worlds we all navigate". Network theories are popular because they act as heuristic devices that encourage interpretation of all aspects of place and object relationships within globalized systems.

Globalization Capitalism and colonialism are tied together through globalization and cannot be separated from the historical events that have shaped the 1nodern world. Colonialism is the creation of new societies in colonized areas (Lawrence and Shepherd 2006). It acted to open new markets, new sources of raw materials and cheap (or free) labour. For instance, colonial activity in Africa provided slaves for the American plantations, while convict labour was supplied free to Australian capitalists. In Iceland (Lucas and Hreidarsdottir 2012) the intersection with colonialism occurred through the development of capitalist fishing ventures between 1880 and 1930, although Iceland had been opened to free trade fro1n 1855. There were changes to labour laws creating a workforce while also increasing dependence on imported com1nodities that were foreign to the traditional rural lifeways of Icelandic villagers. This, along with the exportation of most of the fishing catch, acted to entangle the Icelander's material life in global capitalism. Frequently the 1nost visible archaeological consequence of capitalist colonial expansion is seen in the transformation of materials as the colonized enter the cash economy. This generally signals a shift from producers (hunters, gatherers, farmers, pastoralists, etc.) to wage labourers and consu1ners, and the colonial power (Denmark in Iceland's case) dominates the commodity flows to and fro1n the colony. Croucher (2011) provides an example of a non-European colonialis1n acting within a European capitalist core. Nineteenth-century O1nani (Arabic, Isla1nic) colonizers of Zanzibar instituted a capitalist mode of intensive agricultural clove plantation production on the 120

Capitalism and globalization

islands using slave labour while using imported European material culture. By examining the production and exchange of ceramics imported fro1n the Netherlands and Great Britain, Croucher (2011: 168) investigated the local expression of capitalism and the agency of the Zanzibaris "to traverse global relations". Willow pattern and other European ceramics were regularly found in the excavations but with different frequencies of forms to those found elsewhere. On Zanzibar clove plantations large bowl forms dominate, with lesser frequencies of teacups, s1nall plates and large platters. This differs to European, North American and Australian ceramic asse1nblages where tableware consisting of individual settings is far more co1nmon. Other differences relate to colour and decoration with a higher proportion of brightly coloured sponge-decorated items. It might be expected that the importation of European ceramics into such an isolated place as Zanzibar was the result of the overflow of that to the nearest European colonial settlement [e.g. Cape Town], but appears [in this case] to represent the desires of nineteenth-century consu1ners on Zanzibar and [the] particular patterns of use which show the manner in which commodity exchange was incorporated into the cultural context of clove plantations. (Croucher 2011: 177) Developing from its 1nercantile beginnings (Johnson 1996: 8; Orser 2014: 31) and spread as a co1nponent of colonialism, capitalis1n has developed as a global system. Globalization involves the regular, worldwide spread of commodities "traded in bulk across great distances" (Gerritsen and Riello 2016: 4). The quantities of materials moving around the world, even in the early stages of globalization, are immense. For instance, by the early 1700s Britain was annually importing between one and two million Chinese porcelain vessels and the Dutch East India Company imported 43 million vessels during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Berg 2016: 256). The Dutch East India Company is an early example of this spread of capitalism. It was established in 1602 and was the sole trading co1npany in the spice islands of southeast Asia with its headquarters in Batavia (Jakarta). During the first half of the seventeenth century VOC ships explored further and further afield "to clai1n lands and resources that crews encountered, and subordinate local peoples in trading partnerships" (Broomhall 2016: 148). Globalization is an outcome of the rise of capitalism (Mrozowski 1999) and industrialization (Gillen and Ghosh 2007: 114) although it is 1nuch 1nore co1nplex than simply imposing a capitalist economy onto other non-European parts of the world. Horning and Schweickart (2016: 39) define it as "a process whereby intensified social, economic and political engage1nents transcend considerable geographical distances and link together disparate polities to variable extents" (see also Muller 2017). The operational realities of capitalism differ across the globe (Wurst 2006: 200). Owing to the complexity of this globalized spread of capitalism it is not possible to develop a general model of globalization processes and therefore Orser (2014: 33-34) promotes the use of a dialectical approach to exa1nine globalization. Orser argues that local communities facing the impacts of globalization "directly experience the conflicts between" glocalization (the 1nixing of the local and the global in ways that create unique cultural expressions (e.g. Richard 2011)) and grobalization (the imperialist expansion of capitalism into new geographical areas) (Ritzer and Richer 2012; Rizter 2007). During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries capitalists increased their profits by expanding into geographic areas that traditionally had non-capitalist means of production and converting the inhabitants into wage labourers. Historical archaeologists investigate this global 121

Jonathan Prangnell

pheno1nenon at the local level often investigating the geographical and te1nporal spread of co1nmodities, fitting their local sites into the wider capitalist world syste1n (e.g. Buckler 2017; Fredericksen 2000; Nayton 2011). Continued and accelerated grobalization is known as fast capitalis1n (McGuire 2008). In the technologically connected twenty-first century the processes of globalization have covered the entire planet and com1nodities move in greater numbers and faster than ever before. Capitalists continue to find places with the lowest labour costs to produce goods and can move the1n swiftly and cheaply to any part of the world. There has been the obvious and dra1natic growth in information technologies, the creation of flexible syste1ns of production and accumulation, the growth of transnational companies and the globalization of the 1narket syste1n (Grossberg 2003). More than this though fast capitalism has created a situation where it is not just expanding into new geographical areas but the market relations of capitalism have also beco1ne the do1ninant framework for ahnost all social and political interactions. Capitalists create new de1nand for products in new marketplaces. For instance, the lead story in the International Edition of The New York Times of Monday 18 September 2017 related to the fast capitalist endeavours of global companies such as Nestle, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. "As their growth slows in the wealthiest countries, multinational food companies . . . have been aggressively expanding their presence in developing nations, unleashing a marketing juggernaut that is upending traditional diets in countries as varied as Brazil, Ghana and India" Gacobs and Richtel 2017: 1). It is contributing to new epidemics of lifestyle diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and increasing rates of obesity in "places that struggled with hunger and 1nalnutrition just a generation ago". It is a characteristic of capitalism that profits are more important than social consequences. There are no incentives within capitalism for capitalists to consider the environ1nental or social costs of their practices. This is the second of Jahan and Mahmud's (2015) "pillars" of capitalism.

Resistance and critical archaeology According to Delle (1998: 5) "historical archaeologists can contribute to the understandings of social processes within capitalism that affect us today as much as they did the subjects of our analyses in the past". But going further, as part of a critical archaeology programme (e.g. Leone 2010), McGuire (2008) calls for emancipatory praxic action on the part of historical archaeologists to identify the mechanis1ns of fast capitalism and to develop progra1nmes to assist working class co1nmunities to create their own histories and a more equitable world. This involves the archaeologist critiquing their own practice, the role of capitalism in creating the discipline of archaeology, the role of archaeology in colonial and capitalist expansion, "contemporary cultural critique" (Saitta 2007a: 267), and working collectively with modern social groups to "seek transformational change to advance their interests" (McGuire 2008: 44). Symonds (2011: 465-466) supports this, calling for archaeologists to take a stand as you cannot undertake archaeological studies of poverty unless you "make an active contribution to the eradication of social inequalities". Inequality is a necessary outco1ne of capitalism as the competition of the marketplace creates winners and losers. The creation of an industrialized working class can be seen as an inevitable consequence of the inequality inherent in capitalism. There have been 1nany historical archaeological studies of working class people, fa1nilies, neighbourhoods and heritage (e.g. Cantwell and Wall 2001; Mayne and Murray 2001; Methany 2007; Orser 2011; Prangnell and Craig-Ward 2017; Prangnell and Mate 2011; Shackel 2004; Waterton 2011), as 122

Capitalism and globalization

well as the consumption practices of the working class (e.g. Crook 2011). One such study by Nevell (2011) examines the style and evolution of workers' housing developed in Manchester, England, following the Industrial Revolution. He tracks these changes between 1740 and 1850 during which time the population of Manchester rose to over 300,000 people with there being nearly 50,000 homes in approximately 4 square miles, and identifies three phases of housing in the city. Firstly, in the late eighteenth century large landholdings were broken up and speculative weavers' cottages were developed. This was followed by a massive boom in housing numbers, types and forms in the first three decades of the nineteenth century. These houses were quickly and poorly built, often only having footings of between one to three courses of brick. They were constructed as in-fill in the backyards of the previously built cottages and often only had two rooms and dirt floors with minimal or convoluted access. The third phase of housing consisted of the repurposing of now defunct hand-spinning and hand-loom weaving workshops as multi-occupancy housing "leading to some of the worst examples of overcrowding in the city" (N evell 2011: 604). Poverty is an inescapable feature of at least some working class life. Historical archaeologists are developing new ways of defining and examining poverty (Mullins 2011: 177), however, Sy1nonds (2011) criticizes 1nost historical archaeologists who research working class poverty for imposing their own twenty-first century, middle-class values, 1norals and ethics onto the people who lived in poverty in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. There are a variety of reactions to the imposition of capitalism and "it is likely that few of those who encountered capitalism willingly bought into its social constructions entirely" (Matthews 2010: 150) but the exploitation of the workers is the very basis of the social relations of capitalism (e.g. Mrozowski 2006: 9). As Lenin (2011: 74) put it, "the greatest ferocity and savagery of suppression are required, seas of blood are required, through which 1nankind is 1narching in slavery, serfdom, and wage-labour". Resistance to the suppression of capitalism can be seen at various scales and in various practices such as in trade union and other collective activities (e.g. Siatta 2007b ), industrial "wars" (e.g. McGuire 2014b ), the establishment of utopian co1nmunities (e.g. Tarlow 2002), and in quotidian activities designed to slow production (e.g. Nassaney and Abel 2000), frustrate the capitalists (e.g. Symonds 1999), steal from the company (e.g. Shackel 2009: 54), ignore domination (Frazer 1999) or use the company's machinery and time to make personal objects. At the North Ipswich Railway Workshops, in Queensland, Australia, workers used the 1nachinery and off- cuts of metal and wood to produce "foreigners" - objects that would be smuggled out of the Workshops for personal or domestic use (Buchanan 2011). As Silliman (2006: 153) cautions, though, workers' agency is restricted as workers live and work within the ideology of capitalism that leads to beliefs of freedom of choice in labour relations but in fact binds the actions of workers by the authority of the "structural and systemic nature of labor". Workers' agency and resistance therefore cannot be fully and freely expressed. McGuire (2014b) provides numerous examples of the archaeology of the most extreme cases of resistance and their outcomes including a 1921 battle between striking miners and the National Guard on Blair Mountain, West Virginia, in which between 50 and 100 miners were machine-gunned to death for 1narching for the right to join a union. This battlefield site has been systematically archaeologically surveyed using battlefield archaeology methods. Other archaeological examples include clashes at Latimer, Pennsylvania, in 1897 that left 19 striking miners dead (McGuire 2014b: 264) and the numerous studies of the Ludlow Massacre site (e.g. McGuire 2008: 188-221; 2014b; McGuire and Reckner 2002; Saitta 2007b). 123

Jonathan Prangnell

The massacre at Ludlow was the culmination of a series violent clashes between resisting rniners and laissez-faire capitalist rnine owners. At the start of the twentieth century Colorado was the eighth largest coal-producing state in the United States of America (McGuire 2008: 194). It had a largely immigrant workforce that were badly exploited by mine companies. For instance, in 1912 the Colorado coal 1nines had an accident rate three times the national average. The companies controlled all aspects of the workers' lives. The co1npanies owned the towns, the stores and the saloons but this is not a case of benevolent paternalis1n (see later in this chapter), rather a way to minutely control the lives of the workers to extract every last cent from them. The co1npanies went to the extent of surrounding "the towns with fences, and the enclosures were policed by company guards" (McGuire 2008: 197) who controlled access to and fro1n the towns. In 1913 the United Mine Workers of America attempted to organize the miners. The companies responded by sacking workers and assaulting union organizers. The workers called for a strike in autu1nn 2013 with a series of demands that mostly required the companies to meet their existing obligations under Colorado law. The strike began in September 2013 and the companies responded by evicting families from the towns. Thousands of people moved into tent camps, the largest of which was at Ludlow. Both sides used violence and murder as weapons in the fight, but in April 1914 the violence beca1ne extre1ne when the National Guard machine-gunned the Ludlow camp which was 1nostly occupied by wo1nen and children. The strikers fought back and the battle lasted all day. At the end of the battle the National Guard burnt and looted the camp. In all 21 people were killed including 11 children. In retaliation, the strikers staged a guerilla-style ca1npaign burning company towns and killing company e1nployees (McGuire 2014b: 265; Shackel 2009: 59). Order was restored ten days later when Federal troops intervened and the union's money ran out. The Colorado Coalfield War Archaeology Project (Saitta 2007b: 63) was established to produce a more co1nplete account of the industrial processes and the war, to investigate how factors such as ethnicity affected the collective actions taken by the strikers, and to deter1nine how the war and its study fit into the contemporary social struggles in southern Colorado and the "formation and 1naintenance of a 1nodern working-class consciousness" (McGuire 2008: 192). They excavated the remains of the burned strike camp and within the bounds of Berwind, a company town (McGuire 2014b: 265). The interpretation of the archaeology gave insights into working class life before and during the strike and demonstrated how little changed following the strike. It showed the materiality of the poverty of the families, the struggles they had in feeding themselves on insufficient wages and the strategies developed, mostly by wo1nen (Wood 2004), to survive in these conditions (McGuire 2008: 208). Projects such as Ludlow and other historical archaeological investigations bring to light the history of labour resistance and struggle against the oppression built into the capitalist system. They hu1nanize the past and present the opportunity for empathy and for modern audiences to "understand the harshness of the strikers' experience" (McGuire 2008: 211). It also gives the lie to the idea that it was the capitalists who freely gave workers their current working conditions and rights (McGuire 2014b: 267). Capitalist ideology works to naturalize the history of capitalism, so workers think that it has always been this way. An illustrative example co1nes from Tehran, Iran, as "it is unclear exactly how and when wage labour became a vital part of the Persian economy and how 1nodern industries transformed wage labourers into a proletariat" (Pouryan 2017: 717). Capitalist ideology also works to hide the history and me1nories of past workers' struggles against capital. This is why so1ne modern day workers will, without 1nuch thought at all, bargain away rights that were hard won. 124

Capitalism and globalization

Given the interconnectedness of capitalism and colonialism the resistance to the imposts of colonial endeavour can be seen as resistance to capitalism. Capitalism creates inequality and differential power structures. Although proponents of a market economy argue that all actors in the 1narketplace are essentially equal, this is not the case. Power is local and the foci of all power relations are located in all social interactions therefore resistance is inherently part of the power relationship of capitalis1n. Paterson (2003, 2011) uses the archaeological records of stations and out-stations on pastoral leases in South Australia and Western Australia to investigate colonial interactions between Aboriginal pastoral workers and the pastoralists. In 1946, 800 Aboriginal workers went on strike for equal pay with the nonAboriginal workers. The strike lasted three years and was a "major event in the recognition of Aboriginal rights and part of the shift toward being granted Australian citizenship" (Paterson 2011: 262) which didn't occur until the late 1960s. Griffin (2010) also explores the resistance of Australian Aboriginal people, in this case at Poonindie Mission located on the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia, which operated between 1850 and 1896. It was established by the Anglican Church with funding fro1n the colonial government. At its height it housed 100 indigenous inmates and farmed over 6000 hectares of land. In the Australian colonial situation Aboriginal people were transported from their own homelands hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometres to 1nissions and reserves. Griffin (2010: 164-167) analyses the in1nates' resistance to the "reorganisation of their natural and social spaces" through the construction of fringe camps located beyond the missionaries' gaze; slipping out to visit the camps of the local Aboriginal group; stealing and eating the mission's sheep; and the practice of traditional food and 1nedicine procure1nent, preparation and consu1nption. Even in these situations, though, Griffin identifies ceramics, glass and brick eroding from the hearths of these resistance camps. So, even here at the very fringes of capitalist expansion in the nineteenth century we find the consu1nption of 1naterial culture produced by European capitalists. Capitalism is so pervasive that even while resisting capitalis1n you consume its products to do so and thereby reinforce the very system you are res1st1ng.

Paternalistic capitalism Paternalism is one particular expression of capitalist social relations. It can be viewed as an extension of the traditional patriarchal family authority fro1n the home into the larger social spheres of political and economic control. Paternalism within industrial capitalism "was a fabrication based on the needs and limitations of an industrial order" (Pappas 2004: 161) but was always designed to increase profits. Improved workers were more efficient, worked harder and had 1nore loyalty to the company. Of course, once the paternalistic enterprise was of no further use to the capitalist "the i1nportance of co1npany responsibility to its workers was abandoned by the owners who simply 1noved their capital elsewhere" (Mrozowski 2006: 158). Paternalistic capitalists 1nay have also had a religious drive to improve the lives of the workforce and their families. One of the best known examples is that of the establishment of Bournville by the Quakers George and Richard Cadbury. In 1879 they 1noved their chocolate business from Birmingham to a rural site, establishing and 1naintaining the model village of Bournville. Paternalis1n, though, is not an absolute and various shades of paternalis1n existed in different capitalist enterprises. Historical archaeology is uniquely placed to interpret the variations in the scale, scope, implementation and practice of paternalism as we can access the archaeological record of the workers and their families and are not necessarily reliant on the moralistic pronounce1nents of the capitalists. 125

Jonathan Prangnell

One such variation is that, in the USA, paternalistic practices tended to occur mostly in isolated com1nunities with either resident owners or superintendents (Ford 2011: 738). Pappas (2004) describes the paternalistic structuring of a mid-twentieth-century Californian logging ca1np. The camp at Soap Creek Pass in the Sierra Nevada Mountains was built to house over 250 people and was used as a paternalistic managerial strategy. The Pickering Lu1nber Corporation constructed the camp so that it contained a superintendent's house, an assistant superintendent's house, a number of enclaves of fa1nily cabins for 1narried workers and 38 small three-man cabins for single workers located in the very centre of the camp. In addition, the company provided stores for purchasing goods and "Pickering picks", co1npany 1noney to be spent in the stores. The company acted as a paternalistic authority, not only supplying the needs of the workers and their families, but also controlling the morals and behaviours of the e1nployees. The company treated the workers with families differently to the single male workers. Single workers were grouped together under the panoptic gaze of the superintendent and they were unable to personalize their living spaces. The only opportunity for single workers to change their conditions was to marry and "be granted" fa1nily quarters. "The company acted as a 1noralizing institution that taught a moral order in which commitment to a family was encouraged just as much as co1nmitment to the corporation" (Pappas 2004: 174). This Californian exa1nple provides a rare case of twentieth-century paternalism as 1nost exa1nples come from the mid to late nineteenth century. Another timber-getting enterprise that provided housing and stores for the workers was the Cootharaba Mill run by McGhie, Luya & Co. between 1871 and 1893 in the Sunshine Coast hinterland of Queensland, Australia (Murphy 2010). Although this operation was not expressly paternalistic it was a capitalist enterprise that provided for the welfare of the employees without the 1noralistic control of the Pickering Lumber Corporation. (McGhie was later to beco1ne the leading figure on the Paradise Goldfield and his religiously based moralising came to the fore as he assisted in the establish1nent of the Methodist Home Mission, the Band of Hope Society and the Mutual I1nprovement Society (Prangnell and Quirk 2013).) Another Australian exa1nple of the content and context of paternalis1n within industrial capitalism that was evident at Soap Creek Pass is the Breiner Mills Estate in southeast Queensland (Prangnell 1999: 61-63). This is an example of paternalistic capitalism occurring in a workplace that was not isolated or on the frontier. In 1850, eight years after the opening of the colony of Queensland to private interests (as opposed to a militarily run convict establishment) Joseph Fleming purchased the first block of land that was to become the Bremer Mills Estate. It was an industrial establishment located on 640 acres (1 square mile) with a 3 nautical mile frontage to the Bremer River, near Ipswich, the second largest town in Queensland. The estate operated fro1n 1851 to 1862 and produced enough flour to supply both the major towns of Queensland. It consisted of a stea1n flour mill, a steam sawmill, a melting down works, a seven-roo1n house for Fleming and his family, servants' quarters, stabling for 20 horses, a superintendent's house, cottages for 300 workers and their families, a church and school house, a general store, a fruit and flower garden, wharves and tramways. Fleming considered himself a religious leader and was also a me1nber of Queensland's first parliament (appointed in 1860) and a strongly paternalistic capitalist. Fleming lived on the estate with his family and the 300 workers and their families. A workforce of 300 men represented 2.4% of the entire male population (over the age of 10) of Queensland in 1861. He supplied this large workforce and their families with cottages for accommodation, regular and paid work, religious opportunities, recreational activities and schooling. Fle1ning felt a religious responsibility for the well-being and protection of his workforce. 126

Capitalism and globalization

Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries a number of copper mines operated in Vermont, USA. One in particular, the Ely mine in Orange County was run on paternalistic lines (Ford 2011). The Ely mine was established in 1834 and by 1853 it was being operated by Smith Ely. His company, Vermont Copper Mining Company, operated the 1nine continuously until 1883 when other business interests became involved. For the 30year period in which the mine was owned and operated by Smith Ely it was run as a paternalistic enterprise. There were at least 850 employees working at the 1nine in 1880 and the workers and their families lived in a centralized village built by the co1npany. As well as most of the housing being constructed to a similar design and layout (changes in design related to status within the company), the village had a co1npany store, an impressive town hall, two churches, a school, post office, livery, meat 1narket, confectionary store and photographer (Ford 2011: 735, 741). Smith Ely also managed the morality of the workers and their fa1nilies establishing two temperance societies in town - the Smith Ely Lodge of Good Templars and the Emmanual Te1nple of Honor. Smith Ely's grandson, Ely ElyGoddard was the general manager of the mine in the mid-1870s and erected his home, called Elysium, in the very centre of the town, next to the company store. "The building bore an uncanny resemblance to a watchtower" (Ford 2011: 743) and was obviously designed to enforce the e1nployer's gaze over the employees at all times. The workers resisted Ely's enforced moralistic code and archaeologically this can be seen in the individualized changes that families made to their uniform abodes. These are all examples of paternalistic enterprises in which the capitalists attempted to enforce their worldview onto their workers. Through attempting to control all aspects of workers' lives, capitalists sought to improve their workforce and increase their profits.

Environmental change Because capitalis1n is based on individuals acting rationally in their own, mostly short-term, self-interest environmental changes often occur as a result of capitalist activity. This was particularly so in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when there was 1nuch less state intervention. (Although twenty-first century changes are likely to be larger in scale.) These environmental changes can be identified archaeologically (e.g. Buckler 2017; Dalglish 2001; Macready et al. 2014; Reitz 2004). Mining was (is) particularly environmentally destructive and changes the landscape through adits, ventilation shafts, spoil piles, the construction of water races, and the use of heavy metals, etc. Gold mining produces sludge, a water-borne waste product that contains fine sands and silts, and chemicals such as arsenic, cyanide and 1nercury. Lawrence and Davies (2014) describe 1nassive amounts of sludge covering vast areas of Victoria, Australia. For instance, in 1875, 10,000 acres of land near Wangaratta were inundated by sludge and on the Loddon River the river flats were 1.5 metres higher than they had been before mining co1nmenced. The source of this sludge was the vast quantities of water used by the miners to wash ores, flush tailings and sluice hillsides. Davies et al. (2011) also recorded remnants of hundreds of kilometres of water races, da1ns, bricklined sluices and deep erosion gullies from sluicing activities on the Creswick goldfield of central Victoria. Capitalist investment in timber-getting also caused extensive environ1nental change, not just from the removal of large trees but also from the transportation of the logs and saw1nilling activities. In New Zealand the use of driving da1n syste1ns to transport felled timber resulted in environmental changes that can still be identified today. Creeks and waterways were scoured to bedrock and flora and fauna destroyed (Wilton and Soltani 127

Jonathan Prangnell

2013). Also, in New Zealand waste from saw1nilling was used for land recla1nation purposes (Boswijk and Munro 2015). The disposal of sawdust was a major issue as very large quantities were produced. Boswijk and Munro (2015: 4) estimate that in just one year in one region of New Zealand over 140,000 cubic metres of sawdust would have been produced. The Kauri Timber Company saw1nill at Kohukohu was located on the shore of Hokianga Harbour and produced approximately 4000 cubic metres of sawdust annually. Archaeological investigations carried out in 2008 demonstrate that this sawdust was disposed of by depositing it on the harbour's 1nangrove flats to reclaim the land. The sawdust caused channel infilling in the harbour, threatened fish stocks and became a navigational hazard.

Conclusion My opening state1nent that capitalis1n is historical archaeology's reason for being is not an uncontested claim. Many historical archaeologists do not perceive their own role within the contemporary, neoliberal, capitalist world, nor do they consider capitalism to be the target of their research. Capitalism, however, is all pervasive. We are all subject to its forces and the archaeological analysis of past commodities gives direct access to the analysis of past social relations of production. It does appear, though, that the recognition of the importance of the historical archaeological study of capitalism is gaining mo1nentum. Recently there has been an increasing nu1nber of historical archaeological reviews including those by Horning and Schweickart (2016), Kepecs (2014), Leone and Knauf (2015), Matthews (2010), McGuire (2014a), Orser (2010: 120-125), and Wurst and Mrozowski (2016). The historical archaeology of capitalism and globalization is an enormous topic that extends into all historical archaeological enquiry. Therefore, there are many other avenues of research on the impacts of capitalism that are not dealt with in this chapter including, for example, effects on animals (Sayers 2014), the improvement move1nent in Britain (Tarlow 2007), the effects of ethnicity on the 1nechanis1ns and expressions of global capitalism (e.g. Terry and Prangnell 2009), or the lifestyles of the upper and 1niddle classes (e.g. Connah 2007) including the capitalists themselves. The arrival and development of capitalism did not occur homogenously across the globe and through a focus on material culture, written accounts and local 1nanifestations of capitalis1n, historical archaeology is well placed to address the question: why is today's world the way it is?

References Ballantyne, T. 2014a. "Empires, Modernisation and Modernities." InternationalJournalfor History, Culture and Modernity 2(1): 25-42. Ballantyne, T. 2014b. "Mobility, Empire, Colonisation." History Australia 11 (2): 7-37. Berg, M. 2016. "Afterword: Things in Global History." In The Global Lives of Things: The Material Culture ef Connections in the Early Modern World, edited by A. Gerritsen and G. Riello, 253-58. London: Routledge. Boswijk, G., and D. Munro. 2015. "Making Productive Space from Sawmill Waste: Timber Production and Reclamation at Kohukohu, Northland, New Zealand (1879-1912)." AustralasianHistoricalArchaeology33: 3-14. Bright, C., and M. Geyer. 2012. "Benchmarks of Globalisation: The Global Condition 1850-2010." In A Companion to World History, edited by D. Northrop, 285-300. Chichester: Blackwell. Broomhall, S. 2016. "Dishes, Coins and Pipes: The Epistemological and Emotional Power of VOC Material Culture in Australia." In The Global Lives ef Things: The Material Culture efConnectionsin the Early Modern World, edited by A. Gerritsen and G. Riello, 145-61. London: Routledge.

128

Capitalism and globalization

Brughmans, T. 2013. "Thinking through Networks: A Review of Formal Network Methods in Archaeology."Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20(4): 623-62. Buchanan, R. 2011. ""The Workshops and the Community." In Behind the Tin Fence:A History of the Ipswich Railway Workshops, edited by V. Maeno, G. Mate and D. Mewes." Memoirs of the Queensland Museum Culture 5(1): 121-35. Buckler, A. 2017. "An Out of the Way Little Place: Historical Archaeology and Globalisation at St Lawrence, Queensland, Australia." PhD diss., The University of Queensland. Cantwell, A. E., and D. Wall. 2001. UnearthingGotham: The ArchaeologyefNew York City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Carroll, L. 2000. "Toward an Archaeology of Non-Elite Consumption in Late Ottoman Anatolia." In A Historical Archaeology of the Ottoman Empire: Breaking New Ground, edited by U. Baram and L. Carroll, 161-80. New York: Kluwer Academic. Casella, E. 2013. "Pieces of Many Puzzles: Network Approaches to Materiality in the Global Era." HistoricalArchaeology47(1): 90-98. Collar, A., F. Coward, T. Brughmans, and B. Mills. 2015. "Networks in Archaeology: Phenomena, Abstraction, Representation." Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22(1): 1-32. Connah, G. 2007. The Same Under a Different Sky? A Country Estate in Nineteenth-Century New South Wales. BAR International Series 1625. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges. Assemblage Analysis: New Approaches to the Archaeology of Crook, P. 2011. "Rethinking Working-Class N eighborhoods." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology15 (4): 582-93. Croucher, S. I{. 2011. "Exchange Values: Commodities, Colonialism, and Identity on Nineteenth Century Zanzibar." In The Archaeologyef Capitalism in Colonial Contexts, edited by S. K. Croucher and L. Weiss, 165-91. New York: Springer. Dalglish, C. 2001. "Rural Settlement in the Age of Reason: Archaeologies of Capitalism and the Recent History of Highland Scotland." Archaeological Dialogues8(1): 35-48. Davies, P., S. Lawrence, and]. Turnbull. 2011. "Harvesting Water on a Victorian Colonial Goldfield." AustralasianHistoricalArchaeology29: 24-32. Dawdy, S. 2013. "Afterword: Archaeologies of Movement." In Archaeologiesof Mobility and Movement, edited by M. Beaudry and T. Parno, 257-62. New York: Springer. Deetz. ]. 1977. In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeologyof Early American Life. New York: Anchor Books. Delle, J. 1998. An Archaeologyof Social Space: Analyzing Coffee Plantations in Jamaica's Blue Mountains. New York: Plenum. Fenwick, R. 2013. "From Tiny Seeds, Mighty Empires Grow: An Archaeological Ottoman Village Site through a World-Systems Perspective." PhD diss., The University of Queensland. Flexner, J. L., M. J. Jones, and P. D. Evans. 2015. "Because It Is a Holy House of God: Buildings, Archaeology, Globalization, and Community Heritage in a Tanna Church." InternationalJournal ef HistoricalArchaeology19(2): 262-88. Ford, B. 2011. "Worker Housing in the Vermont Copper Belt: Improving Life and Industry through Paternalism and Resistance." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology15(4): 725-50. Frazer, B. 1999. "Reconceptualizing Resistance in the Historical Archaeology of the British Isles: An Editorial." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology3(1): 1-10. Fredericksen, C. 2000. "Capitalism, Colonialism and Seaborne Power in Maluku: Prospects for an Historical Archaeology of the Spice Trade." Bulletin efthe Australian Institutefor Maritime Archaeology24: 27-34. Gaitan-Ammann, F. 2011. "A Life on Broken China: Figuring Senses of Capitalism in Late NineteenthCentury Bogota." In The Archaeologyof Capitalism in Colonial Contexts, edited by S. K. Croucher and L. Weiss, 143-63. New York: Springer. Gerritsen, A., and G. Riello. 2016. "The Global Lives of Things: Material Culture in the First Global Age." In The Global Lives ef Things: The Material Culture ef Connections in the Early Modern World, edited by A. Gerritsen and G. Riello, 1-28. London: Routledge. Gillen, P., and D. Ghosh. 2007. Colonialism& Modernity. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. Graves-Brown, P. 2013. "The Box and the Encinal Terminal: An Archaeology of Globalization." PostMedievalArchaeology47(1): 252-59. Griffin, D. 2010. "Identifying Domination and Resistance through the Spatial Organization of Poonindie Mission, South Australia." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology14(1): 156-69.

129

Jonathan Prangnell

Groover, M. 2005. "The Gibbs Farmstead: Archaeology in an Internal Periphery." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology9(4): 229-89. Grossberg, L. 2003. "Cultural Studies, the War against Kids, and the Re-Becoming of U.S. Modernity." PostcolonialStudies 6(3): 327-49. Horning, A., and E. Schweickart. 2016. "Globalization and the Spread of Capitalism: Material Resonances." Post-MedievalArchaeology50(1): 34-52. Jacobs, A., and M. Richtel. 2017. "Hooking Brazil on Junk Food." The New York Times, International Edition, September 18. Jahan, S., and A. S. Mahmud. 2015. "What Is Capitalism?" Finance& Development52(2): 44-45. Johnson, M. 1996. An Archaeologyof Capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Kepecs, S. 2014. "Capitalism: Historical Archaeology." In Encyclopediaef Global Archaeology,edited by C. Smith, 1140-50. New York: Springer. Lawrence, S., and P. Davies. 2014. "The Sludge Question: The Regulation of Mine Tailings in Nineteenth-Century Victoria." Environment and History 20: 385-410. Lawrence, S., and N. Shepherd. 2006. "Historical Archaeology and Colonialism." In The Cambridge Companion to HistoricalArchaeology,edited by D. Hicks and M. Beaudry, 69-86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lenin, V. I. 2011 [1917]. State and Revolution. New York: International Publishers. Leone, M. P. 2010. CriticalHistoricalArchaeology.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Leone, M. P., and J. E. I{nau£ 2015. "Introduction to Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism, Second Edition." In HistoricalArchaeologiesof Capitalism, edited by M. Leone and J. I{nauf, 3-22. New York: Springer. Lucas, G., and E. Hreidarsdottir. 2012. "The Archaeology of Capitalism in Iceland: The View from Videy." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology16(3): 604-21. Macready, S., S. Bickler, and R. Clough. 2014. "Transforming Auckland's Landscape: The Role of the Entrepreneur." In Finding Our Recent Past: Historical Archaeology in New Zealand, edited by M. Campbell, S. Holdaway and S. Macready, 167-90. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association. Marston, S. 2000. "The Social Construction of Scale." Progressin Human Geography24: 219-41. Matthews, C. N. 2010. The Archaeology ef American Capitalism. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Mayne, A., and T. Murray. 2001. The Archaeologyef Urban Landscapes:Explorations in Slum/and. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McGuire, R. H. 2008. Archaeologyas PoliticalActivity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. McGuire, R. H. 2014a. "Capitalism in Archaeological Theory." In Encyclopediaef Global Archaeology, edited by C. Smith, 1131-40. New York: Springer. McGuire, R. H. 2014b. "Won with Blood: Archaeology and Labor's Struggle." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology18(2): 259-71. McGuire, R.H., and P. Reckner. 2002. "The Unromantic West: Labor, Capital and Struggle." Historical Archaeology36(3): 44-58. Mehler, N. 2013. "Globalization, Immigration, and Transformation: Thoughts from a European Perspective." HistoricalArchaeology47(1): 38-49. Metcalf, S. 2017. "Neoliberalism: The Idea that Swallowed the World." The Guardian,August 18. www. theguardian.com/ news/2017 / aug/ 18/ neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world Methany, K. 2007. From the Miners' Doublehouse:Archaeologyand Landscapein a PennsylvaniaCoal Company Town. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Mrozowski, S. A. 1999. "Colonization and the Commodification ofNature." InternationalJournalefHistoricalArchaeology3(3): 153-66. Mrozowski, S. A. 2006. The Archaeologyef Class in Urban America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mrozowski, S. A. 2014. "Imagining an Archaeology of the Future: Capitalism and Colonialism Past and Present." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology18(2): 340-60. Muller, U. 2017. ""Globalisierung in der Archaologie: weltsysteme, Scapes und Netzwerke." In Globalisierung, edited by U. Muller." Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaftfur Archiiologiedes Mittelalters und der Neuzeit 30: 9-24. Mullins, P. R. 2011. The ArchaeologyefConsumer Culture. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

130

Capitalism and globalization

Murphy, K. 2010. "Beyond the Cootharaba Mill: An Archaeology of Social Interaction, Practice and Community in Colonial Australia." PhD diss., The University of Queensland. Nassaney, M., and M. Abel. 2000. "Urban Spaces, Labor Organization, and Social Control: Lessons from New England's Nineteenth-Century Cutlery Industry." In Lines that Divide: HistoricalArchaeologiesef Race, Class and Gender, edited by J. Delle, S. Mrozowski and R. Paynter, 239-75. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Nayton, G. 2011. The Archaeology ef Market Capitalism: A Western Australian Perspective.New York: Springer. Nevell, M. 2011. "Living in the Industrial City: Housing Quality, Land Ownership and the Archaeological Evidence from Industrial Manchester, 1740-1850." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology 15(4): 594-606. Orser, C. E. 1996. A HistoricalArchaeologyof the Modern World. New York: Plenum Press. Orser, C. E. 2010. "Twenty-First-Century Historical Archaeology." Journal of ArchaeologicalResearch18: 111-50. Orser, C. E. 2011. "The Archaeology of Poverty and the Poverty of Archaeology." InternationalJournal ef HistoricalArchaeology15(4): 533-43. Orser, C. E. 2014. A Primeron Modern-WorldArchaeology.Clinton Corners, NY: Eliot Werner. Orser, C. E. 2017. HistoricalArchaeology.3rd Edition. New York: Routledge. Papandreou, A. G. 1972. PaternalisticCapitalism.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Pappas, E. I. 2004. "Fictive Kin in the Mountains: The Paternalistic Metaphor and Households in a California Logging Camp." In Household Chores and Household Choices:Theorizing the DomesticSphere in HistoricalArchaeology,edited by K. S. Barile andJ. C. Brandon, 159-76. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press. Paterson, A. G. 2003. "The Texture of Agency: an Example of Culture Contact in Central Australia." Archaeologyin Oceania38(2): 52-65. Paterson, A. G. 2011. "Considering Colonialism and Capitalism in Australian Historical Archaeology: Two Case Studies of Culture Contact from the Pastoral Domain." In The ArchaeologyefCapitalism in Colonial Contexts, edited by S. I{. Croucher and L. Weiss, 243-67. New York: Springer. Phillipi, B. 2011. "Multiscalar and Transcultural Interaction in the Post-Contact Northeast: A Duel Application of World-Systems Theory and Structured History." KroeberAnthropologicalSociety 99(1): 201-13. Pouryan, A. A. 2017. "History, Space and Industrialization: An Industrial Archaeology of Labor at Tehran, Iran." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology21 (3): 708-24. Prangnell, J. 1999. "Intended Solely for Their Greater Comfort and Happiness: Historical Archaeology, Paternalism and the Peel Island Lazaret." PhD diss., The University of Queensland. Prangnell, J., and H. Craig-Ward. 2017. "Domestic Archaeology of 1 William Street, Brisbane City." AustralasianHistoricalArchaeology35: xx-xxxx. Prangnell, J., and G. Mate. 2011. "Kin, Fictive Kin and Strategic Movement: Working Class Heritage of the Upper Burnett." InternationalJournal of HeritageStudies 17(4): 318-30. Prangnell, J., and K. Quirk. 2013. "Assuming the Aspect of a Civilized Place." In HistoricalArchaeologies efCognition:Explorationsinto Faith, Hope and Charity, edited by J. Symonds, A. Badcock andJ. Oliver, 87-97. Sheffield: Equinox. Reitz, E. 2004. "Fishing Down the Food Web: A Case Study from St Augustine, Florida, U.S.A." American Antiquity 69(1): 63-83. Richard, F. G. 2011. "In [Them] We Will Find Very Desirable Tributaries for Our Commerce: Cash Crops, Commodities, and Subjectivities in Siin (Senegal) during the Colonial Era." In The Archaeology ef Capitalism in Colonial Contexts, edited by S. I{. Croucher and L. Weiss, 193-218. New York: Springer. Ritzer, G., and Z. Richer. 2012. "Still Enamoured of the Glocal: A Comment on From Local to Grobal, and Back." BusinessHistory 54: 798-804. Rizter, G. 2007. The Globalization of Nothing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Saitta, D. J. 2007a. "Ethics, Objectivity and Emancipatory Archaeology." In Archaeologyand Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics,edited by Y. Hamilakis and P. Duke, 267-80. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Saitta, D. J. 2007b. The Archaeologyof CollectiveAction. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Sayers, D. 0. 2014. "The Most Wretched Beings in the Cage of Capitalism." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology18(3): 529-54.

131

Jonathan Prangnell

Shackel, P. A. 2004. "Labour's Heritage: Remembering the American Industrial Landscape." Historical Archaeology38(1): 44-58. Shackel, P. A. 2009. The Archaeologyof American Labor and Working-Class Life. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Silliman, S. 2006. "Struggling with Labor, Working with Identities." In HistoricalArchaeology,edited by M. Hall and S. Silliman, 147-66. Oxford: Blackwell. Symonds, J. 1999. "Toiling in the Vale of Tears: Everyday Life and Resistance in South Uist, Outer Hebrides, 1760-1860." InternationalJournal of HistoricalArchaeology3(2): 101-22. Symonds,]. 2011. "The Poverty Trap: Or, Why Poverty Is Not about the Individual." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology15(4): 563-71. Tarlow, S. 2002. "Excavating Utopia: Why Archaeologists Should Study 'Ideal' Communities of the Nineteenth Century." InternationalJournal efHistoricalArchaeology6(4): 299-323. Tarlow, S. 2007. The Archaeologyof Improvementin Britain, 1750-1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terry, L., and]. Prangnell. 2009. "Caboonbah Homestead 'Big Rock' or 'Little Britain': A Study ofBritishness in Late 19th and Early 20th Century Rural Queensland." AustralasianHistoricalArchaeology27: 99-110. Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins ef the European World-Economyin the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press. Wallerstein, I. 2007. World-SystemsAnalysis: An Introduction.Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Waterton, E. 2011. "In the Spirit of Self-Mockery: Labour Heritage and Identity in the Potteries." InternationalJournalefHeritage Studies 17(4): 344-63. Wilton, D., and L. Z. Soltani. 2013. "Tram or Dam? A Comparison of I{auri Logging Transportation Methods in the I{auaeranga Valley, New Zealand, 1871-1928." Australasian HistoricalArchaeology31: 78-87. Wood, M. C. 2004. "Working-Class Households as Sites of Social Change." In Household Chores and Household Choices: Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in HistoricalArchaeology,edited by K. S. Barile and ]. C. Brandon, 210-32. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press. Wurst, L. 2006. "A Class All Its Own: Explorations of Class Formation and Conflict." In Historical Archaeology,edited by M. Hall and S. Silliman, 190-206. Oxford: Blackwell. Wurst, L. 2016. "Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism." EuropeanJournal of Archaeology19(2): 389-93. Wurst, L., and S. Mrozowski. 2016. "Capitalism in Motion." HistoricalArchaeology50(3): 81-99. Zeischka-Kenzler, A. 2017. ""Globalisierung im 16./17. Jahrhundert: ein Tiibinger Forschungsprojekt in der Spanischen Koloialstadt Panama la Vieja." In Globalisierung, edited by U. Muller." Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Archdologiedes Mittelaltersund der Neuzeit 30: 85-94.

132

8 ENSLAVEMENT AND EMANCIPATION Terrance Weik

Because of its antiquity and global 1naterial imprint, slavery is one of the most popular types of human phenomena that archaeologists have investigated. The estimates that millions of people live in some modern form of bondage is a testa1nent to slavery's ongoing social relevance and durability (cf Walz 2010, 188). The legacy of African enslave1nent can be seen in the various ways that race continues to create institutionalized, violent, emotional, and intellectual modes of White supre1nacy, privilege, and discrimination. Discourses have emerged that take archaeological research on slavery in unique directions, such as the debates over the representations of ancient Egyptian pyramid construction by alleged Israelite slave labor, or the paradoxes of pottery emerging in the 1nilieu of colonial globalization (Cobb and DePratter 2012; Wynn 2008). Archaeologies which examine the microscale of daily life may help to restore an appreciation for the subjectivity of enslaved people, whose hu1nanity was damaged through their objectification, stigmatization, commodification, and abuse (Marshall Wilson 2015, 2). Since the 1890s archaeologists and biological anthropologists have been conducting field and lab work that investigates enslavement, and by the 1970s rebellion and (self-)e1nancipation were also included in their interests. From the 1960s to the 1990s there was a great surge in research on these two poles of interrelated human experience, primarily concerning people of African descent. This was the product of identity politics, idiosyncratic intellectual curiosity, "development", and human demands for housing, in areas of for1ner enslavement or selfliberation (Ainmann 2012, 27). This chapter delineates the newer trends in research that are emerging in the 21st century and their public relevance. Although a nod will be given to slavery and (self-)emancipation in other parts of the world, on non-Africans, the chapter will mostly concentrate on Africans in diaspora and Africa. The focus will be on text-aided or "historical" types of archaeology, with brief mentions of more ancient forms of bondage occurring outside of capitalis1n, stratified occupational or economic groups, and nation-states.

Slavery, emancipation, self-liberation: working definitions Before archaeological works can be assessed, it is i1nportant to clarify what behaviors and experiences are encompassed by the concepts of slavery and (self-)e1nancipation. Slavery is difficult to define for all times and places (Alexander 2001). It could refer to a social system 133

Terrance Weik

of bondage and the statuses that comprise it. Common aspects include coerced labor, captivity, social 1narginalization, and dehumanization (Wilson 2015). Fro1n a global perspective, slavery has been defined in different ways and been distinguished from other forms of forced labor, depending on how fluidly or rigidly social stratification is enforced, and on which ways human difference is demarcated ideationally, spatially, or bodily (Ca1neron 2016; cf Connah 2001). The conditions and experiences under which people were enslaved varied depending on the tasks and work relations that were negotiated or imposed, on their identities in relation to property, and on the 1nechanis1ns and degrees of their confinement. Enslaved people's experiences were impacted by whether or not they were enslaved by slaveholders who shared ethnic identities or ho1nelands, and if they were objectified through racial or other means. From a cross-cultural, deep ti1ne perspective, slavery has been found on ahnost all continents, in societies that differed in economic systems, scales of co1nplexity, and residence modes. Bondage has been found in societies as different as hunter gatherers, and nation-states. Slavery is commonly associated (as cause or derivative) with issues such as warfare, social stratification, polygynous 1narriage, and dynamics of political integration (Hrncir and Kvetina 2017). Similarly, (self-)emancipation is a concept complicated by the goals of the parties involved (e.g. personal freedom versus collective liberation), the involve1nent of allies (e.g. abolitionists, pirates, or indigenous people), and the ideological basis for anti-slavery (e.g. theological, political, etc.) activities (Orser and Funari 2001; T. M. Weik 2012b). In some cases, "selfe1nancipated" people built new com1nunities that, at least for a time, protected their human rights, prolonged their escape fro1n bondage, and enabled them to fight so1ne forms of exploitation. Various factors will be referenced in what follows, as no simple definition applies to the great volume of archaeological works on slavery and opposition to it.

Geographical trends The 21st-century archaeologies of slavery and (self-)emancipation have exhibited an expansion of research to more parts of the world and to the enslavement of other groups of people besides Africans (e.g. see contributions to World Archaeologysuch as Baker 2001). Most archaeological coverage of African diaspora enslave1nent continues to be in the Americas, although that is uneven. Not surprisingly, North A1nerican and former Anglo colonial Caribbean holdings garner the 1nost attention (Singleton 2010, 703). U.S. research is robust, likely because of 1nore abundant scholarly funding, cultural resource laws, and heritage activism. Rural plantations and Maroon communities continue to be major targets of studies, but urban and other areas are garnering more attention. The chronological focus of most archaeological research is on 19th-century slavery, which is not surprising in light of the challenges of archival, artifact, and landscape preservation. There is a marked increase in studies of the Northern US, versus the usual Southern concentration of studies. There is growing acknowledgment of the fact that slavery was not just a Southern thing. What's more, Northern and Southern slaveholders and factory owners were pursuing similar, and at times directly interconnected forms of capitalism (cf Andrews and Fenton 2001, 118). Archaeologies of freedom-seekers are largely situated in either the Midwestern or Northeastern Underground Railroad sites or Southeastern Maroon studies (LaRoche 2014; Sayers 201 Sa). In Latin America, research has expanded from a Caribbean emphasis to a slowly growing field that includes more South and Mesa-American sectors; Cuba and Brazil stand out. Cuban plantations are among the body of places that are being celebrated and preserved by 134

Enslavement and emancipation

national and international heritage proponents (Singleton and Paul 2015). In Brazil, a 20thcentury research emphasis on plantations and self-emancipated com1nunities called Quilombos has been expanded in the 21st century to include more work on plantation laborer quarters, cities, Catholic slave owning, cemeteries, social conflict, and religious temples (Symanski 2016). Likewise, a s1nall number of studies on plantations and self-liberated communities called palenques have taken place in Cuba. This is not surprising in light of the long-running slave trades to these places and late dates of e1nancipation. In both Brazil and Cuba, the geographic scope of work on self-liberated com1nunities has expanded to include sites in a larger nu1nber of locales. There are notable gaps in key places like the Andes Gamieson 2005, 264). Panama, Colo1nbia, and Argentina have been newer foci for research projects on haciendas, slave trading, ce1neteries, and pottery (Ammann 2012; Schavelzon and Zorzi 2014). In Surinam, Maroon studies are more visible in the published literature than slavery studies (Agorsah 2006; White 2010). Jamaica and Barbados have long attracted people studying slavery and Maroons (Agorsah 1994; Delle 2014a; Smith 2008). French and Dutch colonies have also featured significant research growth in the breadth of research topics and sites. In the French Antilles, archaeology has been expanding under Kelly and his students working on plantation settlement patterns, creolized cultural practices, zooarchaeology, and other topics in places like Guadeloupe and Martinique (Kelly 2002; Kelly and Wallman 2014). At Dutch slavery locales such as Water Island (Virgin Islands) elaborate finds include plantation features such as arched cisterns and artifacts such as cane knives (located in enslaved ho1nes) (Anderson, Kidd and Yates 2001). Across Caribbean colonial regimes, the transitions from slavery to freedo1n, or a se1ni-free or slightly less-than-enslavement condition (e.g. apprenticeships), have provided insights over key conflicts (e.g. regarding land ownership) and aspirations for self-deter1nined economic pursuits (e.g. emergent Afro-Caribbean entrepreneurship and "negotiated autonomy") (Douglas V. Ar1nstrong 2010; D. V. Armstrong et al. 2009; Finneran 2017). In Africa, there has been a growth in the geographic and theoretical scope of research involving slavery and anti-slavery contexts (Wilson-Marshall 2009). Africans were enslaved locally as well as transported to different parts of the continent, as the archaeology of Cape Town suggests (e.g. bond persons from Daho1ney or Angola shipped to South Africa) (Cox et al. 2001, 74-75). Both in Africa and in pre-colonial American contexts, archaeologists have described methodological proble1ns such as recognizing architectural evidence for enslavement camps or anti-enslavement 1neasures such as settlement walls, as distinct from other causes for camps or defensive measures. Similarly, there are challenges in differentiating indigenous concepts and structures of slavery versus kinship and other bases for labor (Alexander 2001; Aines 2001). West African research builds on a significant but small number of internal slavery studies as well as Africanist transatlantic critiques. The newer West African archaeologies emphasize "Atlantic world" political-econo1nies (F. Gijanto and Horlings 2012; Richard 2013). I1nportant criticis1ns continue of A1nericanist overgeneralizations about African societies contributing to the slave trade and eastern hemisphere colonial soc1et1es. Some of the newest research is taking place in islands off the coast of Africa such as Mauritius and Madagascar (Pearson 1997; Seetah 2015b, 2015a). A substantial but less well studied research locus that adds the Asian and East African slave trades to the typical Atlantic perspective of many, is found in the archaeology of enslavement done in South Africa (Lucas 2004c.; Cox et al. 2001). Studies in this part of Africa have examined architectural evidence, burial data, globalized enslavement processes, and the transition from integrated (into slavery society) to segregated post-emancipation "Colored" communities. 135

Terrance Weik

Although African enslave1nent is the primary focus of this chapter, other parts of world and other people besides Africans have been enslaved. Africans enslaved other people, as in the case of the Abyssinian kingdom that levied captives from the Arabian Peninsula, over a thousand years ago (T. M. Weik 2012b, 12). Scholarship on Classics, and Roman and Greek slavery seems to have historically taken greater notice of research on the Americas than vice versa. However, African diasporists working in the Americas are starting to pay 1nore attention to eastern he1nisphere slavery (F. G. Richard 2014; Wilson 2015). As research continues into the 21st century, a growing database expands archaeologists' ability to see similarities and differences in the materiality, spatial organization, labor regimes, and means of interaction for slavery contexts. For instance, whether out of desire or necessity, enslaved Africans (or diasporans) across ti1ne and space exercised their skills, knowledge, and industriousness as they made pottery or recycled ite1ns like glass to use as knives (Singleton 2010, 708-710).

Theoretical trends The 21st-century archaeologies of slavery and (self-)emancipation have featured a significant boost in theoretically intricate approaches co1npared to previous years (cf Singleton and Bograd 1995, 29). Archaeology has beco1ne more than just a method of describing quotidian details or a repository of relic data. Archaeologists are advancing historical anthropologies of enslaved people's craftwork, exchanges, spiritual beliefs, family relations, and interpersonal engagements, a1nong other things (Singleton 2010, 720). There has been a general shift from top-down or bottom-up to more integrative e1nphases on various agents within and beyond the enslaved/slaveholder dialectic. Although creolization continues to resonate in implicit and explicit aspects of African diaspora scholarship, new nuances and alternative directions have displaced it from its once dominant position in the discourse. There has also been a continuing emphasis on power and descendant co1nmunities since the 1990s. Select theoretical categories that represent so1ne of the 1nost easily accessible published research are exa1nined below to illustrate some of the diversity and breadth of 21st-century scholarship.

From political economy to Marxism The political economy of slavery - or varieties leaning more towards politics or economics has been a primary concern of archaeologists since they started studying bondage. Over the years there has been a growing argument that slavery was not just a primitive form of economy, but a modern practice that fit into capitalism. Marxist archaeologists have suggested a number of thought-provoking research directions: ways conflicts materialized in slavery settings; critical perspectives that remind us that slavery transcended master/slave relationships and included the role of state and racist modes of socialization; the socio-economic dimensions of enslaved people's alienation; African (American) spiritual community and long-term (into the present) religious-1nagical practices which offer avenues for resistance and alternate modes of consciousness and praxis (Matthews et al. 2002; Sayers 2007, 2014, 2015a). The material culture and archival records of slavery suggest that, whether slaveholders ran small far1ns or elite entrepreneurial establish1nents, their pursuit of wealth was motivated by class aspirations as much as personal co1nforts or a fascination with possessions such as fancy tea wares (Andrews and Fenton 2001, 18). However, on a macro level, the co1nforts of wealth and class aspirations of some slaveholders were foiled in places like Delaware by the 136

Enslavement and emancipation

division of lands occurring through processes of inheritance and intrafamilial resource distribution (De Cunzo 2013, 88). These obstacles to elite status augmented the barriers to social 1nobility that Marxist archaeologists associate with class conflict (Matthews et al. 2002, 110; Delle 2014a). Similar tensions are examined in the archaeologies of instabilities, contradictions, (dis)orders, and slippages involving "poor Whites" and freed people in the colonial Caribbean (Douglas V. Ar1nstrong 2010; Reilly 2015).

Identity Although social identity and related concepts such as race have long been a concern of archaeological slavery studies, there has been an expansion in both the types of identities discussed and the relevance of wider social theory (Epperson 2004; Orser 2001; T. M. Weik 2014). Good 1nodels have emerged from settings as far apart as Caribbean plantations and midAtlantic far1ns that account for the materiality of identities while also addressing slaveholders' structuring imperatives, multiple scales of meaning, oppositional tactics, and Africaninfluenced ancestral practices (Delle 2008; Fennell 2007; Wilkie 2000; Wilkie and Farnsworth 2005). These models frame African diasporan aesthetics, symbolism, and cultural practices in theories that account for dynamics informed by complex memory-making processes and resilient heritage. These works encourage us to rethink our approach to material culture from a trait-based and acculturative focus to a contextual, polysemous, plurally agentive explanation. For example, they encourage shifting analysis from a fixation on 1nakers, markets, and suppliers of European refined earthenware pottery to a co-consideration of the views and experiences of African diasporan pottery users (Wilkie and Farnsworth 2005). The issue resonates with matters that ethnographers have been grappling with for decades: how people "resocialize commodities" or find significance in 1nass produced ite1ns (Miller 1995). Even when the pottery emerges from the hands of enslaved people, the 1neanings and social implications of aspects such as decoration are not without complexities. There has been a long list of critics of the idea that decorative motifs are reliable indicators of ethnic emblems (Hauser 2008). Conversely, researchers have also uncovered instances of iconographic and technological resiliency and revitalization in enslaved African diaspora contexts. For instance, Fennell's archaeology of "ethnogenetic bricolage" draws on Sherry Ortner's theory of core symbols, widely held social values that prioritize and enco1npass knowledge, to locate African and German practices within processes such as transatlantic flows, cultural transfers, and emblematic material expressions (Fennell 2007). Although there has been an improvement in the ways identity is conceptualized, there are still some tendencies among 1nany to undertheorize identity. For instance, so1ne archaeological discussions focus more on essentialist identity approaches which are more about identifying bounded cultures or traits that identify social groups. Fortunately, models have emerged that 1nove beyond that to handling the 1nultidimensionality of group and individual uniqueness, the spectrums encompassing cultural specific and pan-societal (interculturally shared) practices, the range of identification processes (e.g. ascription), and the problems of human differentiation, social belonging, and strategic essentialis1n (T. M. Weik 2014).

Pragmatism The idea of pragmatis1n has emerged largely in publicly engaged or for1nal empirical variants of archaeological research. The for1ner type e1nphasizes the ethics of archaeological practice, scholar reflexivity, democratized knowledge, and scholar-co1nmunity collaborations in 137

Terrance Weik

heritage and interpretation (McDavid 2002). The latter form promotes a pluralist epistemological discourse that informs a practical, critical archaeology. An example of this latter prag1natic approach mobilizes a humanistic social science of beads, a popular emblem of identity- and tradition-based approaches to enslaved Africans in the Americas. This prag1natic approach interprets beads by fusing analyses of cultural productions (e.g. song), statistics on artifact attributes and feature associations, diachronic inferences from TPQs, and contexts for daily actions and plantation relationships. This is a creative way of showing archaeology's unique and new contributions to the Herskovits-Frazier debate (A. AgbeDavies 2017). Critics of identity and tradition point to the need to incorporate new approaches that are grounded in pragmatic, experiential, archaeologically centered, antifoundationalist approaches.

Cosmopolitanism Cosmopolitanis1n has beco1ne a more explicit source of archaeological ideas since 2000. There have been various approaches, exploring diverse, a1nbivalent facets of the concept: cosmopolitanism as the nexus of globalizing, hybridizing processes, engaged by local initiatives; cosmopolitanism as the racialized, Eurocentric ideology of a worldly consciousness exported globally; cosmopolitan critique, which combines self-criticism and calls for more robust archaeological ethics; cosmopolitanism as a constellation of fluid ethnically plural landscape projects (Baram 2012; F. Richard 2013; T. M. Weik 2012a).

Gender and feminist perspectives The 21st-century discourse on gender and feminist archaeologies of slavery has explored a range of issues, including mortality, life-spans, labor systems, health conditions, workrelated osteological impacts, gender-specific burial goods (e.g. more jewelry in fe1nale inter1nents), subsistence strategy risk factors, consumption, and artifact acquisition mechanisms (see contributions in Galle and Young 2004). Black feminist and womanist perspectives have been 1nost visible in the literature on slavery, although this is not as prominent in certain cases, as in East Africa (Croucher 2007; Franklin 2001). Historically, feminist archaeology has 1noved through various waves of theoretical emphasis. Earlier waves emphasized the need to restore wo1nen's actions and voices into interpretations of the past. They spent much time deconstructing patriarchal narratives put forth by chroniclers and archaeologists, and their androcentric assumptions about 1naterial culture, social spaces, and authorial perspective. Although there is good reason to move well beyond these now (seen as) more humble goals, they are still relevant in places. For instance, an archaeological critique of the research on African Seminole Maroons suggests that it suffers from an overreliance on androcentric chroniclers' accounts, which lack consideration of fe1nale leadership roles, partly because of their assu1nptions about female confine1nent to participation in domestic spheres of the gendered division of labor. Historians and their primary sources, and some archaeologists, remain fixated on male self-liberated African Se1ninoles' leadership in battles, political negot1at1ons, and economic exchanges (T. M. Weik 2012b, 138). Over 20 years ago, archaeologists were urged to move beyond looking for genderspecific African American material culture or places, and instead exa1nine ways that power dynamics, social categorizations, and human relations became engendered by 1naterial culture (Singleton and Bograd 1995, 29). Nuanced studies of ancestral gender practices, labor tasks, 138

Enslavement and emancipation

households, and features (e.g. storage pits) suggests that the cr1t1que is being addressed in newer handlings of the gendered division of labor (Fesler 2004). While there is a recognition of multi-gendered and multi-feminist standpoints, the womanist archaeological perspective e1nphasizes unique experiences and contributions attuned to racialized factors, culturally specific (trans)formations of Blackness, social justice and legacies of sexis1n, class conflict, colonialism, apartheid, and poverty. Altogether, these issues comprise what is termed "intersectionality", the 1nultiplicity and synergistic operation of female and youth oppression. Archaeologists struggle to 1nove beyond focusing on single modes of oppression, even if they give nods to other aspects of inequality (Franklin 2001). It is a matter of debate whether Franklin's turn of the 21st century criticism still stands: that the field of archaeology needs to overcome the professional practices which 1nake Black feminist (wo1nanist) scholarly contributions and intellectual genealogies "subjugated knowledge" (Franklin 2001). A small but growing number of analyses of gender and (Black) fe1ninist concerns is advancing archaeologies of slavery in places as far apart as Tennessee (USA) and Zanzibar (Croucher 2007). Battle-Baptiste (a student of Franklin) offers one of a few extended treatments of a Black feminist archaeology perspective (Battle-Baptiste 2011). Her unapologetically vindicationist perspective elaborates on home spaces, 1nundane material and spatial loci of coping, empowerment, healing, and self-validation. She joins a growing body of archaeologists that point to co1nplexities and problems of gendered places (naturalized public vs. private domains), identity politics, socialization practices, engagements with inequality, and economic contributions (Battle-Baptiste 2011; Baugher and Spencer-Wood 2010; Hauser 2008: 161).

Materialities of slavery Beyond behavior, belief, and social relations, material culture and the materiality of artifacts have been fertile ground for theoretical application. From the late 19th century through to the present, slaveholders' big house ruins, walls, wells, and other estate features have been consistently documented. Enslaved people's house postholes, pits, and possessions have also been heavily sought after. In places, the archives, along with the soil and landscapes, hold clues about meager traces such as chimney falls, middens, and cellars, and these may not be exclusively or definitively associated with enslaved people or slaveholders, especially for smaller enslave1nent operations (Andrews and Fenton 2001, 119). Theories of artifacts have shifted from pre-21st-century concerns: the ways artifacts reflect resistance or control; how 1naterial culture indicates acculturation, assimilation, or African ethnicity; and material re1nnants of integrating forces of creolization. Newer work of the 21st century has emphasized the contextual approach and consumption, while building on previous concerns about creolizing processes, or culturally specific, African-influenced or African A1nerican behaviors. Comparative and regional-scale analyses have been some of the most nuanced. For example, a study of the relationship between African people and commodities within the Atlantic region has sought to address contributions of African skills to plantation econo1nies and global markets. Iconic, indexical, and symbolic meanings are being uncovered from sites that are speaking to the social valuation of beads and cowries (Ogundiran 2002). Newer examinations of MidAtlantic U.S. enslavement sites has also used the contextual approach to illustrate how beads, coins, and "charms" can speak to polysemous, intersecting matters of identity, healing, and well-being (Lee 2011).

139

Terrance Weik

Methodological trends Among the most prominent methodological trends of the new 1nillennium of archaeological research is the call for more comparative approaches. A conference and publication have resulted from this perspective (Wilson 2015). The obstacles to such an approach include disciplinary boundary policing, the potential loss of context resulting from such an approach, and the homogenizing that could result if the diversity of aspects of slavery is not balanced with attention to cross-cultural patterns. The benefits of a co1nparative approach to slavery include 1nore numerous dialogues between scholars and attention to the diversity of agents, forms, structures, and consequences of do1nination (Mullins 2008, 161). In addition, global comparisons invite the application of critical and other theories (F. G. Richard 2014). At least one attempt has been made to apply a cross-cultural statistical approach to the archaeology of slavery, which correlates enslavement with human behaviors such as metallurgy and high social stratification (Hrncir and Kvetina 2017). Archaeological research in places like Mauritius is being proposed with an aggressive comparative set of questions in mind concerning the1nes such as workscape flows, worship, anti-slavery activity, punish1nent, habitation, confine1nent, burial, social transitions (e.g. slavery to indenture), colonial administration, and so on (Seetah 2015b). Other examples include research on transformations of interrelated African and Brazilian potting, enslaved African influences on Southern (U.S.) White burial practices, or health disparities (Souza 2015; Davidson and Black 2015, 17). In the more technical part of the methodological spectrum of developments is the use of GIS to examine slavery and defiance to it. GIS has been used in various ways: to create viewshed models of slaveholder control and enslaved subversion; to analyze cartographic sources on land consolidation; to track plantation workflows; to illuminate interplantation communication and interaction (Delle 2014a). Elsewhere GIS has played a role in both academic study and heritage 1nanage1nent: providing cultural resource managers with a tool to integrate archaeological features with photos and other sources; generating new data with the help of GPS; rectifying HABS architectural drawings and older archaeological planview 1naps (D. V. Ar1nstrong et al. 2009, 95-107). GIS is among the tools that are improving archaeological analyses of the shift from enslave1nent to freedom. This transition has been a growing concern a1nong archaeologists, in contrast to ethnographers' and historians' more established discourses on the topic (Douglas V. Ar1nstrong 2010; Seetah 2015b; Singleton and Bograd 1995; Springate and Raes 2013). Similarly, GIS has been used by archaeologists studying the transition from bondage to selfe1nancipation during slavery days. It has been used as a predictive model to estimate Maroon site location, as an aid to interpreting landscapes of resistance or defense, and as a visual analysis tool for identifying settle1nent variables (Ejstrud 2007; Norton and Espenshade 2008).

Research: topical trends, results, and evidence By exam1n1ng a few specific themes in greater detail the depth of archaeological findings can be given greater attention.

Opposing slavery: self-emancipation, revolt, and Maroons The 21st century has featured a significant increase in the exploration of rebellion and resistance to slavery. There have also been important theoretical shifts from the resistance/ do1nination dichoto1ny and reactive notions of resistance to approaches giving more attention to

140

Enslavement and emancipation

self-determined initiatives, power continuums, contradictions, and intertwined pro-/ antislavery agency on landscapes, and 1nemory-mak:ing (or co1nmemoration) (Douglas V. Armstrong 2003, 2010; Delle 20146; T. M. Weik 20126). Although still less nu1nerous than plantation studies, research on "Maroons", African diasporans who liberated themselves from slavery (some built communities), has been moving toward 1nore mature investigations compared to the more exploratory 20th-century studies. There are less than 30 settlements that have been studied to date (Agorsah 2006; Ejstrud 2007; Norton and Espenshade 2008; Orser and Funari 2001; Sayers 2015a; Smith 2008; T. Weik 2007; 2009; White 2010; Wilson 2015). A similar number of intensive archaeological studies of Underground Railroad sites exists, co1npared to the hundreds of archivally docu1nented historical sites (or places known through oral traditions or histories) (LaRoche 2014). But even these numbers dwarf the amount of archaeological studies of rebellion (Delle 20146). However, rebellion can be useful as a part of other theoretical fra1neworks, as has been demonstrated for the study of African diasporan participation in informal, underground markets and potting (Hauser 2008). Investigations of self-liberated African com1nunities have expanded our understanding of their material repertoire, as artifacts have been uncovered that are absent in archival sources (e.g. ritual and utilitarian pottery or trade goods). Archaeologists have pushed Maroon discourses into 1nore elaborate historical anthropological theorizations of landscapes of subversion, values and practices of freedom, scission communal for1nations, local rule models, and ethnogenetic settle1nent life history. The recovery of materialities of the Underground Railroad offers opportunities to critique historical narratives and rethink relations between White and Black participants (LaRoche 2014; T. M. Weik 2012a).

Foodways An important area of specialization involves what has historically been labeled "foodways" and diet, studies involving the procurement, distribution, preparation, serving, 1neaning, and consu1nption of foods. From the long view, earlier studies (pre-2000) largely attempted to demonstrate how faunal and floral re1nains could speak to African diasporan food traditions or the ways enslaved people coped with challenges of survival and nutritional deficiency. In both pre- and post-emancipation periods, as well as in self-liberated African diasporan contexts, one finds evidence that people survived and even gained a level of self-sufficiency with the help of wild animal sources. For exa1nple, one could compare Fort Mose's (wild to domesticate) faunal species profile to that of the people who escaped and became "contrabands" at Civil War period Camp Nelson, Kentucky (McBride and McBride 2010; Reitz 1994). Newer research on enslaved, emancipated, and post-emancipated people in the MidAtlantic and Eastern US is suggesting similar results (Springate and Raes 2013). What studies of faunal re1nains have shown is the development of culturally specific African diasporan food practices and identities. These culinary engagements are situated within the complexities of ever-e1nergent forms of racis1n, and persistent food-based cultural practices. For example free and enslaved people continued to rely on pork, fish, and chicken in Annapolis, MD, over long periods of time (Warner 2015). Re1nains of this trio of meat sources, along with qualitative analyses of African American cultural productions (e.g. 1nusic or quilts) illustrate how these foods were vehicles for social identity, cultural values, com1nunal support networks, and experiences of home place freedom. These foods were served on 1nismatched dishes, as was the case in other parts of the African diaspora. Similarly, other free Black sites across the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic US have contained these and other wild and domesticated fauna (Springate and Raes 2013). 141

Terrance Weik

However, as with past colonoware studies, critics could point to a need for more comparative studies that assess the degree to which archaeological evidence for ethnic food patterns holds up when cross-ethnic, peer-status (e.g. poor White vs. Black people), or panregional data are assessed. There is also the question of the degree to which food consumption and preparation practices were shared, exchanged, or interdependent (Mintz and Price 1992; cf. Souza 2015, 77). The political implications of these practices were pointed out by Sidney Mintz who has suggested that enslaved Afro-Caribbean cooks experienced some of their earliest opportunities for autonomy, if not freedo1n, because of their ability to shape the palette of their enslavers. Similar observations have been made for the Afro-Caribbean maritime econo1nies (Douglas V. Armstrong 2003). Likewise, in South Carolina "1nid-18th century, African Americans monopolized the urban fishing industry and readily manipulated the supply and price of fish in Charleston markets" (Zierden and Reitz 2009, 338-341; cf. Ames 2001, 4). These observations hint at for1ns of social leverage available to enslaved people that contrast with the usual interpretation of slavery and colonialis1n as systems of absolute White power.

Burials, death, cemeteries, bones A nu1nber of newer slavery studies are exa1nining the material remnants of bodily death and its social implications. For example, isotopic data from South Africa has helped us understand the diversity of regional origins and biological constitutions of enslaved people (Cox et al. 2001). Different C3 and C4 signatures have been found in the bones of captive South Africans. Unique burial practices have been discovered that are based on the differing subassemblage patterns of burial goods and bodily internment positions. Another example is the Danish Virgin Isles data, where a Creole-transformation 1nodel has been used to frame the discussion of old world continuities and new world changes, including shifts in identity marking behavior that manifested in the death rites of enslaved islanders (Blouet 2013, 767). As elsewhere in the A1nericas, there was racialized segregation of burial plots. There were significant distinctions between African and European burials in terms of the 1naterial culture of grave goods, which reflected power, status, and resource access. However, there was also overlap in the types of burial goods in African and European burials. Afro-Moravian burial landscape practices shifted over time such that people went from being buried with choir groups to being buried with kin groups. Like in the US, many Virgin Island burials were either in or near residential property and local church yards. However, research has ultimately contributed to the understanding that burial practices varied across the Caribbean and North A1nerica. Although hegemony was real, African (American) culture influenced Euro-A1nerican practices at times. Intricate aspects of burial 1naterial culture have been uncovered such as grave vaulting. Not surprising are the disparities in quality, cost, and quantity of grave goods in some places where gender, race, and age were examined (Davidson and Black 2015, 17).

Newer approaches to slaveholders Ironically, some archaeologists have argued that slaveholders have beco1ne "invisible men" in the 1nove away from an overemphasis on the big house and toward restoring attention to neglected enslaved Africans. Archaeologists have exa1nined neglected issues such as 142

Enslavement and emancipation

small-scale Appalachian slave traders, and the anxiety that came with profit-making for charm-wearing Pana1nanian slave traders (Am1nann 2012; Andrews and Fenton 2001). Similarly, archaeologists are benefitting from the work of more ethnographically oriented historical anthropologists who've critiqued the Eurocentric, gender-biased public engage1nent media regarding fe1nale slave owners such as Anna Kingsley, the African woman who married the well-known Zephaniah Kingsley, and helped run his plantations Gackson 2011).

Public archaeology, activism, community engagement, and descendants At the nexus of concerns about theory, method, and evidence can be found the explosion of writings and projects devoted to the social relevance and applied aspects of (anti-)slavery archaeologies. There have been nu1nerous catalysts for concern about public engage1nent and descendant communities: environmental concerns about building construction; fears of heavyhanded government control of land; the appropriation of culturally affiliated material culture; wars and 1nilitia threats to heritage sites and practices (and practitioners); co1nmunity activism; cultural resource management laws; and idiosyncratic acade1nic theoretical initiatives (e.g. critical theory) (Seetah 2015b, 923). As one scholar reflexively puts it, "How can we help to 1nake citizens peer through the enchant1nent of a given present and conte1nplate so1ne of the somber histories on which our 'well-being' was built?" (F. G. Richard 2014, 83). Archaeologies have articulated a number of helpful concepts for application. For instance, it is i1nportant to see corrununities, publics, and descendants as varied in their composition, interests, size, geographical proxi1nity (to each other or material culture), capacity for action, com1nitments to social justice, and effects (A. S. Agbe-Davies 2010, 379; McDavid 2011, 2002). It is also important to see these entities as not just social groups but also as parts of phenomenological and historical processes. One reason this is crucial is that these entities change in their priorities and constitution, which affects how they operate and engage with archaeologists. Collaboration is an important theme as it helps us address elitist or racially patronizing assumptions such as the notion that there is a universally recognized value to archaeological research. Collaborative research can aid in the identification of national or local econo1nic benefits of heritage (e.g. touris1n). In addition, archaeologies can be used to aid the social healing process for settings where there have been unaddressed, human rights violations during and after slavery (Skipper 2016). Some scholars have joined activists in vigilantly monitoring public and institutional discourses and practices so that distinctions are made between effective and superficial practices of racial reconciliation, co1nmunity well-being, or heritage curriculum. It is crucial for organizers, academics, and cultural heritage workers to learn about the principles informing these issues (McDavid 2002; Skipper 2016). There are a number of specific approaches to activist archaeology. For instance, Black fe1ninist archaeologists remind us that "the personal is political" (Battle-Baptiste 2011). Ultimately, archaeologists vary in their feelings about the role of activism, vindicationis1n, and social movements in shaping archaeological theory and practices concerning race and African diaspora (Brandon 2008; Douglas V. Armstrong 2008; Epperson 2004; Lee Dawdy 2008; Mullins 2008). While it's good to be leery of the political uses of archaeology, it is important to acknowledge that all knowledge and research is in some way political, or at least has political implications (even the status quo). Archaeologies of anti-slavery resistance and Maroons both draw on and inspire move1nents for social justice, anti-racism, postcolonialis1n, African-centered cultural nationalist liberation, and culturally relevant African diasporan freedom traditions (T. M. Weik 2012b). 143

Terrance Weik

Marxist archaeology suggests there are various benefits to studying Maroon praxis: it provides modern readers with novel examples of people whose "self-extrication" allowed them to create alternative societies outside of the oppression of slavery and colonialism; it informs present-day political economic consciousness raising dedicated to transforming centuries-old capitalist systems into more egalitarian ones; and it encourages support networks for Leftist archaeologists (Sayers 2015b). There are clear lessons about survival, co1nmunity building, and anti-oppression strategies that can be learned from the archaeology, oral traditions, and history of self-liberated groups: the importance of self-sufficient cultural and resource production (e.g. rites of passage, agriculture); the benefits of multilingual co1nmunication skills (e.g. in diplomacy or trade negotiations); opportunistic military alliances; the ability to 1nobilize quickly for defense or to find 1nore suitable residence; and the ability to integrate a diverse population CW eik 2005). It is important to carefully interrogate the assumption that archaeologists' interests will automatically align with those of publics or descendant communities (A. S. Agbe-Davies 2010). This concern has been around for quite some time in the thinking of proponents of decolonized anthropology. What's 1nore, descendants and public commentators have demonstrated that they have their own tools of cultural criticism and historical initiatives of aesthetic, cultural, and political critique. For instance, we find these tools and initiatives at work in the Bajan critics of elite Euro (U.S.)-centric touristic heritage progra1ns pro1noting big house archaeologies of George Washington in Barbados. In Jamaican Maroon and Black Se1ninole co1nmunities some descendants show indifference to archaeologists' work whether out of feelings of pride of their own oral traditions or out of fear of being displaced from public discourses and prohibited from asserting control over (self-)representations of history (T. Weik 2007; 2012b). As in earlier times, wider publics do not always wait for academic invitations or validation in their practice of avocational archaeology. They can contribute new information as a result of regional surveys or more intensive localized projects involving slavery. For example, the Cura