Categorical Denial: Evaluating Post-1492 Indigenous Erasure in the Paper Trail of American Archaeology

Abstract

To understand the implications of archaeological site recording practices and associated inventories for studying Indigenous persistence after the arrival of Europeans, we examined the documentary record associated with nearly 900 archaeological sites in Marin County, California. Beginning with the first regional surveys conducted during the early 1900s and continuing into the present, the paper trail created by archaeologists reveals an enduring emphasis on precontact materials to the exclusion of more recent patterns of Indigenous occupation and land use. In assessing sites occupied by Indigenous people from the late sixteenth through the mid-twentieth centuries, we discuss how the use of multiple lines of evidence—including temporally diagnostic artifacts, chronometric dating techniques, and historical documentation—may help illuminate subtle but widespread patterns of Native presence that have been obscured by essentialist assumptions about Indigenous culture change. Our findings further reveal the shortcomings of traditional site recording systems, in which archaeologists typically categorize sites within the prehistoric-protohistoric-historic triad on the basis of commonsense decisions that conflate chronology with identity. Instead, we argue for recording practices that focus specifically on the calendric ages of occupation for any given site.

Breaching Barriers: The Fight for Indigenous Participation in Water Governance

“…According to the US National Park Service, which administers the Register, such sites are eligible for listing if they are important for maintaining "cultural identity" of a community or if they are associated with "traditional beliefs" of Native groups about origins, history, or the nature of the world [174]. The report, however, only reinforced the problematic idea that the only cultural or historic resources of concern to Indigenous peoples are those associated with pre-contact or early contact with settlers [175].…”

Confronting the Present: Archaeology in 2019

“…Another example of the process of epistemic justice comes from Schneider (2019), who develops the concept of “heritage in‐between” to counter narratives of Native American extirpation in the past and Indigenous cultural absence in the present. In the temporal space between “prehistoric” and “historic” eras so common in Western archaeological thought, Schneider recovers “Native American cultural continuity and transformation before and after colonization” (57; see also Panich and Schneider 2019). In particular, Schneider demonstrates that Indigenous peoples can and do sustain cultural traditions and live contemporary lives—a “survivance” (Vizenor 1999) in between extinction and assimilation that recuperates Native American histories and identities.…”

Enduring Traditions and the (Im)materiality of Early Colonial Encounters in the Southeastern United States

“…The use of absolute chronologies moves us beyond tendencies to establish temporal boxes that emphasize material discontinuity and that can contribute to Indigenous erasure or the disenfranchisement of modern-day descendant communities from their deep ancestral histories (Creese and Walder 2018; Panich and Schneider 2019). Indeed, the assumptions that we build into our archaeological chronologies can substantively affect our narratives (Lulewicz 2018a; Panich and Schneider 2019).…”

“…The use of absolute chronologies moves us beyond tendencies to establish temporal boxes that emphasize material discontinuity and that can contribute to Indigenous erasure or the disenfranchisement of modern-day descendant communities from their deep ancestral histories (Creese and Walder 2018; Panich and Schneider 2019). Indeed, the assumptions that we build into our archaeological chronologies can substantively affect our narratives (Lulewicz 2018a; Panich and Schneider 2019). As an example, recent work in California has demonstrated how the use of culture-historic frameworks rooted in materially based chronologies can contribute to both the mass obfuscation of continuity and Indigenous erasure, distorting Indigenous histories of European colonialism (Panich and Schneider 2019).…”

“…Indeed, the assumptions that we build into our archaeological chronologies can substantively affect our narratives (Lulewicz 2018a; Panich and Schneider 2019). As an example, recent work in California has demonstrated how the use of culture-historic frameworks rooted in materially based chronologies can contribute to both the mass obfuscation of continuity and Indigenous erasure, distorting Indigenous histories of European colonialism (Panich and Schneider 2019).…”