Dynamics of change in multiethnic societies: An archaeological perspective from colonial North America

Abstract

This Perspective presents an overview of the archaeology of pluralistic colonies (approximately late 1500s-1800s) in North America. It complements the other special feature papers in this issue on ancient societies in Mesoamerica, the Near East, the Armenian Highlands, Peru, and China by presenting another body of literature for examining the dynamics of change in multiethnic societies from a different time and place. In synthesizing archaeological investigations of mercantile, plantation, and missionary colonies, this Perspective shows how this research is relevant to the study of pluralism in both historic and ancient societies in three ways. (i) It enhances our understanding of interethnic relationships that took place in complex societies with imposing political hierarchies and labor structures. (ii) It helps us to refine the methods used by archaeologists to define and analyze multiethnic communities that were spatially delimited by ethnic neighborhoods. Finally, (iii) it presents more than a half century of experimentation with various models (e.g., acculturation, creolization, ethnogenesis, and hybridity) that have been used to study the dynamics of culture change in multiethnic societies.European colonies | indigenous peoples | enslaved laborers | colonial hierarchies | ethnic neighborhoodsAn important issue in the study of the dynamics of change in multiethnic societies is understanding how pluralism may have created new forms of social relationships, cultural practices, and sociopolitical organizations over time. Archaeologists have long been interested in documenting ancient places where large, pluralistic populations resided. There is growing interest in the investigation of culture contact, pluralism, and social dynamics in ancient cultures using crosscultural, comparative analyses (1-3). The comparative study of social formations in complex societies is particularly timely for the field of archaeology (4, 5). That is why the papers in this PNAS Special Feature are so important: they make a significant contribution in broadening our perspective and understanding about the social dynamics of complex, multiethnic polities in Mesoamerica, the Near East, the Armenian Highlands, Peru, and China.The purpose of this Perspective is to place the PNAS papers into the broader archaeological literature on pluralistic places. It is important to recognize that an extensive body of research exists for the study of multiethnic communities. Since the 1960s historical archaeologists have used a diverse range of datasets, including archaeological materials, archival documents, ethnographic accounts, and oral traditions to examine interethnic interactions in colonial settings. I begin by presenting a brief overview on the archaeology of colonialism in North America that has focused on settler, managerial, and missionary colonies. I then outline how this research may be relevant for scholars working elsewhere in the world who are examining the dynamics of change in multiethnic societies characterized by notable politica...

Zooarchaeology of Mission Santa Clara de Asìs: Bone Fragmentation, Stew Production, and Commensality

“…As such, the traditional preparation and shared consumption of Spanish-style stews highlights how certain alien practices may be used to negotiate, create, and sustain multi layered social relations within a colonial setting. For newcomers to the mission, the sharing of the food preparation and cooking using traditional and colonial culinary practices likely created new communal and cohesive social relationships (Lightfoot 2015). Regardless of the acceptance or rejection of colonial food resources, these meals were given different meanings from the Spanish, and instead, this practice was integrated into preexisting social and cultural values.…”

Subaltern Debris: Archaeology and Marginalized Communities

“…Emphasis on rebellion and resistance has also been the norm in archaeology, especially in postcolonial archaeology—something that has been reconsidered recently (Liebmann & Murphy 2010; Lightfoot 2015). Archaeologists sided with the oppressed subaltern against the elite or the colonial authorities by evidencing mainly uprisings and defiance, among slaves in colonial South Africa (Hall 2000) and nineteenth-century Islamic Zanzibar (Croucher 2015), among indigenous and slaves alike in Portuguese Brazil (Gomes Coelho 2009; Orser & Funari 2001), among indigenous women on the Spanish Orinoco frontier (Tarble de Scaramelli 2012) and female convicts in nineteenth-century British Australia (Casella 2012), or among peasants and colonized communities in ancient and modern Cyprus (Given 2004) and the ancient Mediterranean (Cañete Jiménez & Vives-Ferrándiz Sánchez 2011; Zuchtriegel 2018), to cite some examples.…”

Modern Colonialism, Eurocentrism and Historical Archaeology: Some Engendered Thoughts

“…Although different authors have been critical about the fact that change has been valued in an overly positive way in archaeology (e.g. Panich, 2013; González-Ruibal, 2014; Lightfoot, 2015), it is also true that many archaeologists still consider that ‘giving voice to the voiceless’ requires attributing them the same attitude towards change and the same degree of individuality that characterize individuals in the present (e.g. Sampson, 1988; Ewing, 1990; Cohen, 1994; Knapp & Meskell, 1997; Sökefeld, 1999; Moore, 2000; Knapp & Van Dommelen, 2008; Machin, 2009; but see Thomas, 2004, for a critique).…”

“…Regarding the historical archaeology of culture contact and colonialism, Kent Lightfoot (2015: 9218) has noticed how categories dealing with contact—from the much-reviled acculturation to more recent constructs such as hybridity, creolization, or ethnogenesis—have focused mainly on the dynamics of change, although he has also drawn attention to the ‘growing interest in the investigation of cultural persistence’ (2015: 9221). Works by several authors (including Lightfoot's in 1995, and Lightfoot et al, 1998) have considered both types of dynamics, trying to increase awareness of the fact that societies are not only made of changes but also of continuities (e.g.…”