Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches to Postcontact Change in the Americas.

Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches to Postcontact Change in the Americas. A recent trend in Americanist archaeology is to publish papers ofsymposia regardless of the coherence of the topic or the quality of theresearch. This edited volume by J. Daniel Rogers Daniel Rogers (January 3 1754 – February 2 1806) was an American manufacturer and politician from Milford, in Sussex County, Delaware. He was a member of the Federalist, who served in the Delaware General Assembly and as Governor of Delaware. & Samuel M. Wilsonis within that trend, and suffers from the problems that derive fromthis approach to publishing.The stated goal of the volume is to explore and describe changes inNative American societies that occurred in post-contact America.Although clearly within the framework of American acculturation acculturation,culture changes resulting from contact among various societies over time. Contact may have distinct results, such as the borrowing of certain traits by one culture from another, or the relative fusion of separate cultures. , theeditors do not see their volume as part of that tradition. Rogersbelieves that acculturation 'is past its prime' because it isethnocentric eth��no��cen��trism?n.1. Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group.2. Overriding concern with race.eth and typological. In contrast to the older approach topost-contact change, the editors of this volume view the contact periodin the Americas as 'an historical process and as a period ofcultural transformation'. Their emphasis is on 'nativestrategies of interaction, resistance, and survival'. In otherwords Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke"put differently , Rogers & Wilson are focusing on how native peoples negotiatedand manipulated Europeans, and how they changed in response. Toaccomplish this goal, contributed papers incorporate eitherarchaeological or historical information.The book is divided into five sections. The first, by Wilson &Rogers, is a general introduction; the last is a brief epilogue also bythe editors. In section 2, the explicitly theoretical part of thevolume, Wilson considers the mixed epistemologies that apply to contactperiod research; R. Leonard evaluates the relevance of Darwinian, orSelectionist se��lec��tion��ist?adj. also se��lec��tion��alOf or relating to the view that evolution or genetic variation occurs chiefly as a result of natural selection.n.One who holds or favors a selectionist view. , theory for constructing explanations of contact periodstudies. Sections 3 and 4 are essentially case studies grouped byregion. Section 3 covers North America North America,third largest continent (1990 est. pop. 365,000,000), c.9,400,000 sq mi (24,346,000 sq km), the northern of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere. , and there are six studies: D.Bamforth examines artefact See artifact. change from the post-contact Chumash sites ofHelo; T. Perttula describes historical period changes of the Caddo; J.D.Rogers explores 18th-century artefact change among the Arikara; C.Cleland considers 19th-century Chippewean economic change; C. Waselkovlooks for evidence of factions among burial assemblages of 18th-centuryGreek; and W. Turnbaugh focuses on trade goods from two 17th-centuryNarragansett cemeteries to evaluate evidence of cultural change in thesocieties. The three contributions in Section 4 attend cultural changein Mesoamerica. J. Gasco and W. Fowler examine post-contact nativeinvolvement in cacao production. Gasco focuses on the socio-economicconsequences for native peoples in colonial Soconusco located on thePacific coast side of Chiapas. Fowler considers that cacao production inthe Izalco region of colonial El Salvador El Salvador(ĕl sälväthōr`), officially Republic of El Salvador, republic (2005 est. pop. 6,705,000), 8,260 sq mi (21,393 sq km), Central America. . In the final essay of thevolume, T. Charlton & P. Fournier G. compare evidence of culturechange in the urban setting of Tenochtitlan and Cuernovaca and the ruralsettings of Otumba and the Mezquital valley.There are many weaknesses in this volume, some of which derive fromthe symposium approach to publication. First, the spatial coverage ofcase studies between north and central America Central America,narrow, southernmost region (c.202,200 sq mi/523,698 sq km) of North America, linked to South America at Colombia. It separates the Caribbean from the Pacific. is quite uneven. Inaddition, there is redundancy of topic. The fact that 66% of theMesoamerican contributions focus on cacao is the most apparent exampleof this redundancy. Given the scope of post-European change among nativesocieties in Mesoamerica, the lack of diversity in contributions fromthis region is surprising and contradicts the editors' statementregarding 'the quantity, scope and depth' of recent researchon the contact period. Finally, the intellectual content of theindividual contributions varies greatly. Some, e.g. Carlton and FournierG., are extremely general descriptions or summaries with littlesubstantive content. Others (W. Fowler and T. Perttula) are detailedhistorical descriptions; still others (R. Leonard) are thoughtfulintellectual pieces that challenge the current intellectual structure ofcontact-period studies in Americanist anthropology.The most serious shortcoming of the volume is not, however, aconsequence of its origin. The editors have simply failed to deliver acoherent, integrated product. I believe there are two reasons for thefailure. First, they want detailed discussions of the changes in nativesocieties from an 'emic' perspective. This goal is not onlyambitious but extremely difficult, given that most historical knowledgederives from European authors or from the archaeological record. How toremove the European bias from documents and discover the meaning ofnative artefacts as part of the negotiation process with Europeansrequires a suite of methods and techniques. This volume, however,incorporates neither method nor technique that would suggest how tocreate the product they seek.In addition, the post-modern, or post-processual, perspective of theeditors does not lend itself to the creation of a coherent product.Product has meaning in science where outcomes can be evaluated againstsome standard set of judgements. In post-modernist archaeology, there isno science because all knowledge is contingent. There is only narrative,and all narratives have equal value. Consequently, a poorly integratedproduct to a scientist simply reflects different constructions to apost-processualist.In the end, then, I do not endorse this edited volume. At best,Rogers & Wilson have produced a volume with some descriptions ofchanges in native societies post-dating European arrival and settlement.For those familiar with the time period and literature, the descriptionsare neither innovative nor do they contain new observations.