260 11. Hybridity, Identity, and Archaeological Practice Kathleen Deagan This collection of chapters makes it clear that in hybridity, identity, and ethnogenesis we are confronting a set of concepts that do not lend themselves to easy definition or consensus. It is also clear that the ways in which archaeologists have approached material hybridity and its relationship to culture are as diverse as the people, places, and periods we study. So Jeb Card’s question in framing the conference was a challenging one: What can these studies bring to the table in regard to understanding changes or persistence of culture and identity, and how does material culture overall relate to these matters? As a discussant, I will attempt to offer some thoughts about how well the contributions of this volume’s chapters answer Card’s question, keeping at the forefront the volume’s stated goal of emphasizing practical aspects of how to deal with the complex lineage a particular piece or class of material culture may have, in support of creating a toolbox of ideas. I’ve chosen to organize my chapter loosely in terms of some very general and somewhat arbitrary themes that cut across many of the volume’s chapters and that pertain to the archaeological study of hybridization and social identity forma- tion. They include archaeological recognition; power relations; context; scale; and indigeneity and material classification. Most of the contributors to this volume have addressed most of these issues in some way, and I am only able to highlight a few examples here. Archaeological Recognition The 26th Annual Visiting Scholar Conference topic questioned the na- ture of hybridity: What constitutes hybrid material culture? How do we recognize The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture, edited by Jeb J. Card. Center for Archaeological Inves- tigations, Occasional Paper No. 39. © 2013 by the Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois University. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-0-88104-096-8.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
260
11. Hybridity,Identity,andArchaeologicalPractice
Kathleen Deagan
Thiscollectionofchaptersmakesitclearthatinhybridity,identity,andethnogenesisweareconfrontingasetofconceptsthatdonotlendthemselvestoeasydefinitionorconsensus.Itisalsoclearthatthewaysinwhicharchaeologistshaveapproachedmaterialhybridityanditsrelationshiptocultureareasdiverseasthepeople,places,andperiodswestudy. SoJebCard’squestioninframingtheconferencewasachallengingone:Whatcanthesestudiesbringtothetableinregardtounderstandingchangesorpersistenceofcultureandidentity,andhowdoesmaterialcultureoverallrelatetothesematters?Asadiscussant,Iwillattempttooffersomethoughtsabouthowwellthecontributionsofthisvolume’schaptersanswerCard’squestion,keepingattheforefrontthevolume’sstatedgoalofemphasizingpracticalaspectsofhowtodealwiththecomplexlineageaparticularpieceorclassofmaterialculturemayhave,insupportofcreatingatoolboxofideas. I’vechosentoorganizemychapterlooselyintermsofsomeverygeneralandsomewhatarbitrarythemesthatcutacrossmanyofthevolume’schaptersandthatpertaintothearchaeologicalstudyofhybridizationandsocialidentityforma-tion.Theyincludearchaeologicalrecognition;powerrelations;context;scale;andindigeneityandmaterialclassification.Mostofthecontributorstothisvolumehaveaddressedmostoftheseissuesinsomeway,andIamonlyabletohighlightafewexampleshere.
ArchaeologicalRecognition
The26thAnnualVisitingScholarConferencetopicquestionedthena-tureofhybridity:Whatconstituteshybridmaterialculture?HowdowerecognizeThe Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture,editedbyJebJ.Card.CenterforArchaeologicalInves-tigations,OccasionalPaperNo.39.©2013bytheBoardofTrustees,SouthernIllinoisUniversity.Allrightsreserved.ISBN978-0-88104-096-8.
Hybridity,Identity,andArchaeologicalPractice 261
it?Andultimately,whatdoesitmean?Mostofourstudieshavecharacterized“hybridity”itselfasinvolvingtheamalgamationofforms,practices,genes,ex-pressions,andsymbolsfromdistincttraditionsintonewtraditionsorexpressions.Inamoredynamicsense,thenotionofhybridization(inthesenseusedbyvanDommelen2005:118)expressesthecreation,throughinteractionandnegotiation,ofnewtransculturalforms,ambiguousculturalaffiliations,andambiguousmean-ings(certainly,atleast,intheeyesofarchaeologists). Formanyoftheparticipantsinthisproject,materialhybridizationismostinterestingasanarchaeologicalentréeintounderstandingthetransformationofculturalidentityinasphereorzoneofpluralisticculturalengagement.Identityitselfis(asweallrecognize)amultiscalar,situational,ambiguous,andcontext-dependentnotion,andoneoftheimplicationswecanderivefromthesevolumechaptersisthathybridizationofmaterialformsdoesnotnecessarilyindicatethegenerationofnewexpressionsofculturalidentity. Thus,abasicpracticalmandateistoacknowledgehowwedefineandrec-ognize“hybridity”inmaterialterms,andhowwecandistinguishitfromchangeproducedthroughartisticcreativity,technologicalinnovation,orcommercialpro-duction.Mostoftheauthorsherehaveconsideredthathybridityisgeneratedinsettingsofpluralisticculturalengagementandinvolvestheamalgamationofmaterialtraitsfromatleasttwoantecedenttraditions.Thechaptersinthisvolumehaveillustratedthisphenomenonintheiranalysesofceramics,textiles,architec-ture,andritual. Notallparticipants,however,havetakenarecombinantapproachtorec-ognizinghybridizationandidentity.JonathanD.Hill,oneofthepioneersofthearchaeologicalstudyofethnogenesis,broadlyconsidersidentityandethnogenesisamongtheArawakan-speakersofSouthAmerica,basedontheintenselyinterdis-ciplinaryComparativeArawakanHistoriesProject.HilltracksArawakexpansionandidentityformationafterthearrivalofEuropeansthroughnewArawakanformsofnaming,recognizing,characterizing,andcommemoratinglandscapes.Hesuggeststhatnewsocialformations(andperhapsidentities)wereorganizedinrelationtocommonsacredplaces.Thisinterestingapproachquestionsthecon-nectionbetweenidentityformationandmaterialhybridity. Instudyingidentitygeneration,HilldrawsonJamesClifford’sconceptual-izationofidentityformationasaprocessof“authenticallyremakingnewsocialidentitybyrediscoveringandrefashioningcomponentsoftraditionstories”(nar-rative,clothing,symbols,etc.).Thisnotioniscloselyalliedtowhatethnographersoftencallretraditionalism(Geertz1973:219)andrevitalization(Linton1943;Wal-lace1956).Well-knownrevitalizationmovementsamongNativeAmericangroupsunderconditionsofcolonization,forexample,includetheCreeksRedskinsintheSoutheast,theShawneeunderTecumsehintheGreatLakes;andPo’payamongPueblos.Ingeneral,revitalizationmovementsattempttorevivetraditionsthroughpracticalinnovationsandnewexpressionsoftraditionalritual.Theydonot,how-ever,seektofundamentallychangeatraditionorincorporateradicallynewbeliefs.Suchaprocessmay(butdoesnotnecessarily)generatehybriditybetweenoldandnewmaterialformswithinatraditionbutoftenreifies,ratherthangenerates,traditionalidentities.
262 K. Deagan
MattLiebmann’sstudyofthepostrebellionPuebloallianceaddresseshy-bridityinadifferent,decolonizationcenteredmanner,byinvestigatingculturalblendingasitmanifestedwithinthematerialcultureofcolonizedpopulationsinseventeenth-centuryNewMexico. Thequestionsabouthowthisblendingcameabout,andwhatthesechangesindicateaboutcontextandidentity,complicatethenotionofhybridityasanamal-gamationofelementsfromdistinctantecedenttraditionsandinviteustoconsiderifwhatwerefertoashybridityinmaterialculturemustresideatthescaleofthematerialobjectsthemselves.Cananynewmaterialformormaterialchangethatisgeneratedorincorporatedinresponsetoculturecontactbeconsideredhybrid?Canmaterialhybriditybeexpressedatthescaleofanassemblage,forexample,onecontainingmultiplebutessentiallyunalteredtraditionalobjectsfromseveralculturalsources(asinmosthistoricperiodsitesinvolvedinexchange)?Ifextended,thisperspectivemightarguethatanynewlyintroducedorborrowedtraitusedinanewordifferentmannerconstitutes“hybridmaterialculture”bytheamalgama-tionofformandmeaning. Isuspectthatmostarchaeologistsaremorecomfortable,asIammyself,withanoperationalnotionofhybridmaterialculturethatbeginswiththerecognitionofmulticulturalamalgamationintheproductionofthematerialinquestion.Un-couplinghybridityfrommaterialproductionmighthelpincorporatenonmaterialaspectsofmeaninganduseintothenotionofhybridityinanuancedway,anditwouldcertainlyprovidespaceforambiguity.Asapracticalmatter,however,Iwouldarguethatthereisclearutilityinconceptualizingwhatwecallhybridmaterialcultureasamaterialamalgamationofdistincttraditionsatthescaleofproduction.Thisisnotonlyinsupportofclarityinarchaeologicaldialogueandmethodologybutalsobecausetheproductionofobjectsbycombiningtechnolo-giesfromdistincttraditionsimpliesconsciousnessandintentioninafairlydirectway.
PowerRelations
MostofthechaptersinthefirsthalfofthevolumeareconcernedwithquestionsofhybridizationandidentitywithinthecontextofAmericancoloniza-tion,acontextthatpredisposescertainthemesandperspectivesrelativetopowerengagements.Atamacroscale,colonizationalwaysinvolvesasymmetricalpowerrelations,andweareallawarethatthewaysinwhichpoweriscaptured,exercised,andexchangedwithinthatmacrorubricbecomehighlyvariableatthe“midi-”and“micro-”scalelocalsettingsthatcompriseacolonialsystem.Understandinghowthoselocalprocessesplayedouthasbeenaprimaryfocusofarchaeologistswork-ingoncolonialism.AsMattLiebmannpointsoutinhisthoughtfuldiscussionofterminologyandpostcolonialtheoryrelatedtoculturalamalgamation,muchrecentAmericanarchaeologicalresearchoncolonialismisintendedtoevadetheassump-tionsandconstraintsofWesterncolonialism,particularlythedreadedbinomialcolonizer-colonizeddichotomy.Thuswehaveseenagreatdealofworkorientedtowardrevealingagencyamongdisenfranchised(usuallymeaning“colonized”)
Hybridity,Identity,andArchaeologicalPractice 263
peoples,oftenbyemphasizingtheircreationofhybridandnontraditionalculturalexpressions. Thisinevitablyassumesacertainkindofpowerengagement,andmoststud-iesinthisdirectionarealmostunavoidablystructuredinbinomialortrinomialterms(colonizer/colonized;foreign/indigenous,NativeAmerican/European/African,andsoon).AsLiebmannalsonotes,however,itisverydifficulttoavoidjuxtaposingsuchcategorieswhenwetrytoarchaeologicallyoperationalizestud-iesofhybridityincolonialsettings.AsmuchasIadmirethecommitmentsofmanypostcolonialscholarstoavoidreifyingessentiallycolonialconstructs,Ialsobelievethatsuchcategoricaljuxtapositionsdid,infact,underliemuchofwhatwearetryingtostudythroughhybridityandthattheyshouldbeconfronted.Thechallenge,asMarkW.Hausernotes,istoavoididentifyingthespecificpeoplewestudythroughabstractionsofhomelandandrathertoidentifythemthroughunderstandingsoflocalinteractions. Colonialinvasionandasymmetricalpowerareobviouslynottheonlymilieuthatencouragesthegenerationofhybridmaterialforms,asmanyofthechaptersaddressingculturalexchangeoutsidetheAmericasdemonstrate.Theyshowcon-cretelyhownewhybridformsarealsogeneratedbyculturalexchangeaffectedbymigration,trade,politicalalliance,orintermarriagepatterns,withoutthesamekindsofpowerasymmetryinherentincolonization.Inmyview,thisbroadper-spectiveisaveryimportantcontributionofthisconferencevolume. RaniAlexanderpositedaveryusefulmodelofvariablepowerstructuresinculturecontactsettings(colonization,culturalentanglements,andsymmetricalexchange)attheVisitingScholarConferenceatSouthernIllinoisUniversitymorethanadecadeago(Alexander1998),andmanyparticipantsinthisconferencehavedrawnonthatmodel.MelissaChatfield,forexample,althoughworkingatleastpartlyinacolonialsetting,attemptstoarchaeologicallydistinguishsitua-tionsofcolonizationfromculturalentanglementinherstudyofAndeanpotteryproduction.DrawingonAlexander’smodel,shepredictshowmaterialelementsfromdistinctculturaltraditionsmighthavearticulatedundervariedkindsofpowerstructures,basedontheirpatterneduseinpublicversusprivatespace.Thiscontextualuseapproachmaybebroadlyusefulinassessingthenatureofculturalengagementsthatgeneratevariouspatternsofhybridity. EleanorHarrison-Buckandhercolleaguesarealsoconcernedwithhybridceramicsinanoncolonialsetting.TheyaskwhethertheincorporationofdistinctnonlocalceramicproductiontraditionsinthematerialassemblagesoftheSibunValleyofBelizemighthaverepresentedlocaleliteemulationofanewstyleorwhetheritrepresentsthecoexistenceofpeoplewithdistinctceramictraditions.Theyapproachthisquestionthroughstylistic,chemical,andcompositionalanaly-sisofpotteryexcavatedfromsiteswithnonlocalarchitecturalelements(circularshrines),whichwereassumedtohavebeenassociatedwitheliteresidencecom-pounds.OneofthemostinterestingresultsofthecompositionalanalysiswasthedefinitionofalocallyproducedimitationofBelizeRedashwares,apotterystyleandpastetypefoundinabundanceintherelativelydistantUpperBelizeValley.Theassociationofthisnewimitationashwarewithresidencescontainingthe“foreign”architecture(circularshrines)suggestedtoHarrison-Buckandher
264 K. Deagan
colleaguesthatsmallgroupsofnorthernelitemayhaveenteredthevalleyandcoexistedwithoutdominatingthelocalresidents.Itwouldbeusefultolearnmoreaboutthecompositionofceramicassemblagesfromnonelitesitesinthearea.Acommunity-scalecontextualizationwouldbemosthelpfulinassessingtheevidencetosupportpotentialinterpretationsofemulationversusimpositionorcommercialproduction.Thismightprovideadditionalsupportfortheauthors’conclusionsthatlocalsocialidentityoftheSibunValleyinhabitantswasnotre-placedbutratherthatneweconomicandsocialnetworksweredevelopedthatintegratedlocalandforeignidentities.
Context
Thecontributionstothisvolumenearlyallillustratethecriticalimpor-tanceofhistorical,social,andarchaeologicalcontextintheinterpretationofhybridity,andespeciallyinestablishingitsconnectionstohybridizationandidentity.Although“hybridmaterialculture”(asgenerallyusedhere)assumesmaterialhybridityattheleveloftheobject,theimplicationsofhybridmaterialcultureforidentityandculturalengagement,arenotnecessarilyinherentinformandproductiontechnology.Forarchaeologists,themeaningofhybridmaterialculturereliesoncontext:thesocialcontextsofproductionanduseastheyarerevealedinthearchaeologicalcontextsofdeposit(andinhistoricalarchaeology,inthehistoricalcontextofdocumentation). OneofthemostdramaticexamplesofthisisinMelissaChatfield’sstudyofAndeanceramics.ShefoundthatthesamepatternsofmortuaryvesseltechnologythatwerethoughttoreflectindirectcontrolorlocalemulationoftheIncasintheprecontactperiodalsosupportedaninterpretationofcolonizationbytheSpanishwhenthecontextofusewasshiftedfrompublictoprivate. JebCard’sstudyoftheextraordinaryhybridceramicassemblagefromCiudadViejareliedonarchaeologicalcontexttochallengeseveralfamiliarnotionsabouthybridmaterialcultureincolonialsettings,includingtheassociationof“colonizer”with“European”and“colonized”with“indigenous”(anissuetowhichIwillre-turnbelow).BoththedemographiccircumstanceofCiudadVieja(newlysettledbynativeMesoamericanalliesoftheSpanish)andthehybridPipil-SpanishceramicassemblageareunparalleledanywhereIknowof.Card’sclosetemporalandsty-listicanalysesofboththebrimmedplatesmadebyPipilpottersandtheformalmajolicastylesinEurope(majolicasbeingalmostabsentfromthesite)producedsomesurprisinginsights.Amongthemostnotableoftheseistheapparentspeedandintensityofstylistic(andpossiblytechnological)communicationandtransmissionacrosstheAtlantic,fromItalianpottersinSpaintoPipilpottersinCiudadVieja.Thisanalysisnotonlyalteredthehistoricallyrecordeddatesofsiteoccupationbutalsohighlightedthematerialconnectionsbetweenlocalexpressionandglobalprocess.CiudadViejaalsoraisesfascinatingquestionsaboutproduction;forexample,whydidthepotterschoosetofaithfullyadoptandrendervesselformbutnotdecora-tion?Wasthisaconsumer-drivenproductionoragenuinemeldingofaesthetics? ContextalsopermittedCardtorejectastandardexplanationforthepresenceofhybridwaresincolonialsites—thattheywereproducedforEuropeanorelite
Hybridity,Identity,andArchaeologicalPractice 265
residentsbecausetherewas“noavailabilityofEuropeangoods.”ThepotteryfromCiudadViejawasclearlytheresultofhighlytrainedproducersskilledinbothSpanishandMexicanceramictraditions,andtheirproductswereclearlychosenasdominanttablewaresbyelitenativeMexicanhouseholds,localPipilresidents,andSpanishcolonists.OtherkindsofSpanish-stylehouseholdpotterywere,however,importedfromSpain.Inthiscase,hybridproduction,situatedinthecontextofusebyallsiteresidents,maywellindicateexpressionofanewsocialidentityinthecontextofdisplayandsocialuse.Thiswillbeclarifiedbyadditionalinformationonthecompositionofentireassemblagesofartifactsfromeachofthehouseholdsatthesite,sincetheplatewarescomprisedonlyasmallpercentageoftheoverallartifactinventories. AnnS.Cordell’sstudyofApalachee“colonoware”ceramics(asthiscatego-ryisreferredtointhesoutheasternUnitedStates)alsogainsinterpretivepowerbeyondtheobviousamalgamationofApalacheeandSpanishceramictraitsbycarefulcontextualizationofitsoccurrenceindiscretehouseholds.AlthoughthesecolonowareswerealsoonceassumedtohavebeenaspecializedwareproducedinordertoprovidetablewaresforSpanishfriarsintheabsenceofEuropeanvessels,contextualanalysis(asatCiudadVieja)hasshownthatitwasalsousedinApalacheehouseholdsattheseventeenth-centurySpanishFloridasiteofSanLuis.Cordell’sanalysesofthesecolonowaresatFrenchOldMobileshowthattheApalacheepotterscontinuedtheproductionanduseofthishybridpotteryevenaftertheirreleasefromtheSpanishmissionandtheirsettlementamongtheFrench.Theretheyaddedmorenon-ApalacheeformstotherepertoiretoincorporateFrenchceramictraditions. Throughoutthecolonialera,theApalacheeremainedbothself-andother-identifiedasApalachee,ashavetheirdescendantsintheregiontoday.Althoughtheycontinuedtomakeandusetraditional(nonhybrid)Apalacheepottery,therelocatedApalacheeseemalsotohaveadoptedcolonowareformsasaminoritycomponentoftheirownhouseholds.ThisconfigurationposesthepossibilitythattherewasashiftfromtributeproductiontocommercialproductionafterApalacheerelocation,eachcontextservingusefulendsforthepotters.Theconnectionsofmarketorcommercialproductiontoidentityformationandethnogeneticpro-cesseshereandelsewhereremaininterestingandunclear.Inthesetransculturalquasi-urbansettings,itseemslikelythattheadoptionofthehybridwaresbytheApalacheeintheircontextsofhouseholdusemaybeamorepowerfulindexofchangingidentitythantheproductionofthepotteryitself. ForMarkW.Hauser,thecontextofproductionassumesgreateranalyticalimportanceinhisstudyofAfrican-producedpotteryintheCaribbeandiaspora.Afro-Caribbeanpotteryisoneofthefewcategoriesofarchaeologicallyrecov-eredmaterialthatcanberecognizedasbeingproduced(aswellasused)almostexclusivelybythedispersedpeopleoftheAfricanDiaspora.Thetraditionhasrootsinthetransoceanicslavetrade,anditsexpressionintheAmericasdoesnotcorrespondtonational,colonial,oreconomicboundaries.Itclearlyreflectsglobalprocessratherthanaspecificplace,time,orculturalorigin. AsbothHauserandLiebmannpointout,thisAfro-Caribbeancategoryofmaterialcultureiswidelyconsideredtobeavarietyofcreolizedexpression—nolesspowerfulinexpressingnewidentitiesbutoftengeneratedbyrecombining
266 K. Deagan
alreadyexistingelementsinthematerialvocabularyofatraditionratherthanbyamalgamatingelementsfromdistinctantecedenttraditions.Afro-Caribbeantradi-tionwaresarenotcloselyassociatedwithNativeAmericanorEuropeantraditions,nordotheyreplicatedirectlypotterymadeinAfrica.Itseemswelldocumentedfrommultiplesourcesofevidence,however,thattheywereproducedbypeopleofAfricanheritageandthattheywereexchanged,purchased,traded,andusedoverwidedistances. Hauserunderstandablyrejectstheideathatthisshouldbeaceramic“type”foravarietyofsoundreasons,butespeciallybecauseoftheverydiversearrayofproductionsettingsandpeoplewhoproducedthem.Thiscategoryofceramicproductionalsoprovidesanexcellentillustrationofthedifficultandtenuousen-tanglementsofethnicidentityandpotterytradition,embodiedinthedebatesoverAfro-CaribbeanorIslandCaribascriptions.Hauserdeclinestofocusonthesewaresasamarkerofdiasporanidentitybutratherusesthemasaresidueofindependentproduction,use,andsale,whichcanrevealthemultipleforcesandcomplexsocialnetworksoftheenslaved.Likemanyofthechapterauthorsinthisvolume,heisinterestedintheintersectionbetweenglobalandlocalprocesses,andtheAfrican-inspiredwaresfoundthroughouttheAfricanDiaspora(likethewaresmadebythePipilpottersofCiudadVieja)offeramaterialdirectionbywhichtodothis.
Scale
Hauser’sconcernsunderscoreoneofthecentralpracticalchallengesforallhistoricalarchaeologists—thatofconnectingthespecificityofthelocalscaleatwhichwemostlywork(sitesandlocalassemblages)toquestionsaboutaggregategroupidentityorsocialengagementthattranscendlocalsettings.Asweknowalltoowell,theextrapolationfromevidencegeneratedatalocalscaletoinsightsapplicabletolargercommunitiescanbefraughtwithdifficulty,andoneofthemostcommoncausesoffailureisdisjunctionsofscale.Scaleconstructsandaltersnotionsofidentityandhybridityaswemovefromindividuallevelstolocalcom-munitiesandbeyond. Theanalyticalscaleatwhichhybridmaterialculturehasbeendefinedandaddressedinthesepapersvariesdramatically,rangingfromalmostinvisibleat-tributesofobjectstositeandregionalassemblagestolandscapes.Ihavebeenparticularlystruckbythedemonstrationthatsomeofthemostdistinguishingtraitsofaspecifictraditionmaybeinvisibleintraditionalarchaeologicalanalysisbasedonstyle,form,decoration,orassemblagecomposition.ThetemperandclaytreatmentofApalacheepottery,theweavepatternsinAndeanfabric,thefiringtechnologyofAndeanceramics,thechemicalcompositionofMayanpotteryinBelize,andthedentalmorphologyofhumanbodiesinPeruwereallcriticaltorecognizingthepersistenceoftraditionalpractices,aswellastheamalgamationofintroducedandlocalmaterialtraditions.Withoutspecializedtechnicalanalysis,however,theseamalgamationsmighthavegoneundetected. Someoftheselessvisibleandnonsignalingelementsofstyleandproduc-tionarealsothoughttoreflecttraditional,culturalidentity-based,andlargely
Hybridity,Identity,andArchaeologicalPractice 267
unconsciouspractice—habitus,“forcesofcostumbre”(Rice1987),andwhatJamesSackettcallsisochresticstyle(Sackett1982,1985).Persistenceandchangeinthesehiddenelementsoftechnologyandproductionmayserveespeciallyeffectiveinrecognizingpersistenceofandpossiblychangeinidentity. ThiswaselegantlyevokedinCarrieBrezine’sdiscussionofAndeancolo-nialfabricanddress(oneofthemostpowerfulmaterialculturecategoriesforsignalingidentity).Byanalyzingweavepatternandtechnology,shediscoveredthatsomeSpanish-stylegarmentsweremadeusingAndeanweavingtechniquesandthatsomeAndeangarmentsweremadeusingSpanishweavingtechniques,thelatterrevealedbytheunconsciousevidenceofarepeatingpatternproducedbyanerrorinsettingupaSpanishfloorloom.Ultimately,however,suchfine-grainedtechnologicalanalysesofhybridmaterialculturegaintheirinterpretivepowerfromthelarger-scalecommunitiesorsocialcontextsinwhichtheyareembedded. HaagenD.Klausalsoapproacheshybridityatafine-grainedscale.Follow-ingthegroundbreakingworkofChristopherStojanowskiinFlorida,Klaustraceschangesingeneticvariabilityofcolonial-periodMuchikpopulationsthroughinheritedtoothsize.Iappreciateincorporationofbioarchaeologyintotheconver-sation:Humangeneticsignaturesarecontrolledbydispassionate,unambiguousprocesses(diploidinheritance)andare,therefore,beyondsocialmanipulation.Totheextentthatbodiesareartifacts,geneticchange(andmaybehybridity)canbeclearlyassessed. However,geneticassessmentsofhybriditysuchasthisoneraisetheissuesofhow“locality”and“indigeneity”areconceptualizedanddefined(thatis,whatpopulationsarebeingamalgamatedtocontributetoordecreasegeneticvariability).Theyalsoraisequestionsabouttheextenttowhichgeneticvariabilityreflectscul-turaldifferences.Stojanowski(2005a,2005b),whohadaccesstobioarchaeologicalandceramicassemblagesamplesfromseveralself-identifiednativeFloridagroups,foundthatgeneticdiversityoverestimatesculturaldiversity. TheburialritualsdocumentedatMorropé,however,doexhibithybridtraits,suchastheincorporationofredfacecloths,aMuchikritualelement.ThepresenceofbothtraditionalCatholicandtraditionalNativeAmericanburialelementsincemeterieshasalsobeenwidelyreportedarchaeologicallyfromthemissionsofFlorida,andinbothsettings,theimplicationsforidentityareasyetunclear(Larsenetal.2001;McEwan2001:637;Thomas1988:120–122). KlaussuggeststhatsuchpluralisticpracticewasnotsimplecontinuityofAndeancultureunderaChristian“veneer”butratherreflectedacommunityresituatingitselfintoanewculturalmilieu.InSpanishFlorida,thesamepat-ternsofritualhybridityhavebeeninterpretedasaccommodationonthepartofFranciscanmissionariestolocalbeliefsystems,withimplicationsforchangingattitudesandpractice(ifnotidentity)amongboththeSpanishfriarsandtheconvertednativepeople(Deagan2003:9).InsideaCatholicchurch,thefriarswereinchargebutneverthelessdidnotimposethepowerofexclusiononthosewhobroketherules.TheactofwillingreligiousconversiononthepartoflocalpeopleandtheirburialinaclearlyCatholicsacredspacealsoinitselfhasimplicationsforidentityalteration.
268 K. Deagan
Indigeneity
Asmanyofthecontributorsherehaveemphasized,assessingthecre-ationofhybridformsrequiresanunderstandingoftheantecedenttraditionsin-volvedintheirproduction.Andinmostofthesestudies,antecedenttraditionshaveatleastindirectlyinvolvednotionsofindigeneity(orpre-encounterlocalpractices)andforeignness(introducedpractices).Iwilldivergeamomentfromdirectconsiderationofscaletoacommentonindigeneity,anissuecloselyrelatedtoscaleinstudiesofculturecontact. Contemporaryanthropologicaldialogueaboutindigeneityisgenerallyground-edintheneedforcontemporarygroupstoestablishindigenousnessinsupportoflandrights,politicalrecognition,andculturalunity,althoughpostcolonialtheoristschallengethenotionastheresidualproductofcolonialismandasessentialist,pri-mordial,andprimitivising(Kuper2003).Withoutenteringthesecurrentdebates,wecanrecognizethattheconceptofindigeneitywasobviouslyalsoproblematicinearlycolonialsettings,bothforobserverslikeourselvesandfortheparticipantsinthecolonialarena.Despiteunderdevelopmentinitsproblemization,indigeneityhasbecomecentraltothenotionofhybridityincolonialencounter,particularlyasoperationalizedbymostarchaeologistsandhistorians. Oneofthepracticalproblematicalfacetsofthe“indigeneity”conceptinar-chaeologicalpracticeistheneedtodefinethespatialandtemporalscaleatwhichaculturaltraditionisconsidered“local”or“indigenous.”Card’sconquistadores mejicanos,forexample,werecertainlyindigenoustoAmerica,buttheywerenotindigenoustoCiudadVieja.Harrison-Buckandcolleagues’“northernelites”andtheBelizeRedashwares,inthesameway,wereindigenoustotheMayaregionbutapparentlynottotheSibunValley.WeretheApalacheepottersnolongerindigenouspeoplewhentheymigratedtoOldMobile?Werefourth-generationwhitecriollosinSt.AugustineindigenoustoFloridaortoSpain?Andwhereweremixed-racepeopleoftheearlycolonialeraindigenous? Idonot,however,advocateeliminatingtheuseofthenotionof“indigenous”inarchaeologicalstudy,sinceitcanbeanimportantaspectofself-proclaimedidentityandapowerfulargumentforaclaimtoplace.Wecanperhapsbetterincorporatethefluidityoftheconceptintoarchaeologicalpracticeifwetreatin-digeneityasanotheraspectofcontext,operatingatdifferentscalesandcontingentontime,place,andthefocusofinquiry.Isuspectthatitwouldbepossibletodothisbymoreexplicitlydefiningandjustifyingthespatialandtemporalparametersofwhatwearereferringtoas“indigenous,”or“local,”andmatchourscalesofinquiryandevidentiaryobservationtothosespatialandtemporalparameters.
MaterialClassification
Hybridmaterialculture,arisingoutofavarietyofoftenambiguoussocialcircumstances,presentsobviouschallengesforeffortstoorganizeitintoaclassificationscheme.Thereisalwaysthedangerthatintheprocessofclassification,
Hybridity,Identity,andArchaeologicalPractice 269
materialculturebecomesemblematicofunderlyinggrammarsofactionandthought,ineffectcreatingaboundedmodelofculturethatthenotionofhybridityissupposedtoevade. JebJ.CardandMarkW.Hauserbothexpressdissatisfactionwithtraditionalapproachestoclassification,whichtypicallycodifymaterialculturetoreflectphysi-calcomposition,chronologicalposition,originofproduction,andsometimesstyle.Theseconstructsessentially“freeze”thecommunicativepowerofobjectsintime,space,andculturalorigin,whichismoreorlesstheantithesisofwhatstudiesofhybridizationattempttodo.Time,space,andcultureare,ofcourse,criticalele-mentsinwhatwedoasarchaeologistsandcannotbeexcludedfromanyanalysis.However,wehaveseeninthesechaptersthatcontext,powerrelations,socialposi-tioning,andintentionalityareequallyimportantelementsinquestioningculturalchangeandidentitythroughmaterialanalysis.Theseelementsare,unfortunately,muchlessamenabletocodification,andsystemsfororganizingandcommunicat-inghybridmaterialitythataresensitivetosocialprocessandsocialcontexthaveyettobesatisfactorilydeveloped. Givenourdisciplinaryneedforasemanticsystembywhichtocommuni-cate,itseemstomethatwecannoteliminatethenotionofclassificatorysystemsaltogether—atminimumwehavetorecordwhatwerecover.Anemphasisonculturechangeandhybridizationmayrequireaflexibleclassificatoryapproachspecifictoeachsetting;onethatcanorganizematerialattributesthatarerelevantandsensitivetothequestionsweareasking,andintegratethemwiththerelevantarchaeologicalandsocialcontexts.IsensedanattempttoachievethisinMelissaChatfield’smatrix-likeanalysiscombiningceramicfiringattributesandformalelementswithchronologicalpositionandpublic-privatecontext. Andperhapstrenchantly,IbelievethatStanleySouthwasattemptingsome-thingsimilarinhisefforts35yearsagotoorganizeexcavatedmaterialsintofunc-tionalorbehavioralcategoriesratherthanmaterialcategories(South1977).South’scontributionsareemblematicoftheprocessualperiodofAmericanhistoricalar-chaeologyandhavebeenwidelycriticizedintheinterveningyearsforusingareductioniststatisticalapproachandanoften-arbitraryassignmentoffunction.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatithasnotnecessarilybeenSouth’sclassificatorysystemthatwastheobjectofcriticism,butrathertheefforttoapplyitinthepursuitofnormativeexpressionsofculture(whichhecalled“patterns”andweremuchinvogueduringthe1980s).Thesearchforpatternsthankfullylastedonlybriefly,buttheflexibilityofthebasicclassificatorysystemendures.Itpermitsthecreationofanalyticalcategoriesintermsofspecificinterests,anditcanbeexpandedandcollapsedtoaccommodatequestionsandcomparisonsatmanyscalesofcomplex-ity.Itprobablymeritsafurther,fresherlook.
ColonowarePottery
Iwouldliketoconcludewithacommentaboutthenotionof“colo-noware”pottery,whichtomeembodiesmanyoftheissuesrelatedtohybridityinmaterialculturethathavebeenaddressedthroughoutthisvolume.Theterm
270 K. Deagan
wasintroducedin1962,publishedinpapersbybothIvorNoëlHume(1962)andCharlesFairbanks(1962).BothascribedtheirfindstoAmericanIndianproduction.Afteralongandoftenseriouslycontentiousdebateabouttheproperattributionofproductionorigin(see,forexample,Moueretal.1999),thetermhascometobeused(atleastinthesoutheasternUnitedStatesandmuchoftheCaribbean)asareferentforpotterythatwasproducedasaconsequenceofcolonizationandencounterintheAmericas.ItincorporatesawidearrayofformsanddecorationthathaveinspirationinAfrican,NativeAmerican,andEuropeantraditions,anditsunifyingtraitsareessentiallythatitislow-fired,usually(butnotalways)handbuilt,andlocallyproduced(Figures11-1and11-2). Asaconcept,“colonoware,”likeAfro-Caribbeanware(whichIwouldcon-sidertobeacolonoware)representsaprocessoftransculturalandoftenpluralisticencounterunderconditionsofcolonialism,butitdoesnotnecessarilyimplyaspecificstyleortechnologicalproductthatistiedtospecificplaces,people,con-texts,ordatesotherthanpost-1490.Withinthespacerepresentedbytheceramiccategoryofcolonowaresatamacroscale(whichcanitselfformausefulfocusforinterregionalcomparison),thereareamultitudeofquestionsthatcanalsobeaskedofitinlocalsettings. Colonowaresarenotexclusivelyrestrictedtonon-Europeanproductiontech-nology.AsAlexandercautionedmorethanadecadeago,wemusttryto“avoidtheassumptionthatthematerialcultureofthemorecomplexpolityisinherentlydesirabletothelesscomplexpopulations”(and,Iwouldadd,viceversa)(Alex-ander1998:486).Oneoftheveryfewexamplesofacolonowarethatincorporatesintroduced(European)productionmethodsofwheelthrowingandkilnfiringwithlocalAmericanformanddecorativeelementsisthe“Guadalajara”orTonolápot-teryofMexico(Charlton1979;Deagan2002a;GarcíaSaíz2003)(Figure11-3).Dur-ingthecolonialperiod,thisAztec-influencedpotterywasproducedandexportedingreatnumbers,largelybecauseofabeliefamongSpanishwomenthatitsbúcaroclaycontainedcosmeticandhealthfulproperties.Thismighthavebeenexcellentmarketpromotiononthepartofexporters,ortheadoptionofAztecbeliefsbySpanishwomen,butthisinquirywillrequireagreatdealmorearchaeologicalandhistoricalcontextualization,onbothsidesoftheAtlantic. Iassumethattherearemanyothercircumstancesofengagementinwhichthe“powerful,”the“complex,”orthe“foreign”incorporatesthematerialtraitsoftheother.Investigationincontextsassociatedwiththe“foreign”aswellastheindigenouspeopleinsituationsofcontactandcolonizationareessentialtounderstandingthedimensionsofexchangeandhybridity.
HybridtoTraditional
Ultimately,allmaterialsthatbeginandpersistashybridtraditions,andallnewidentitiesrelatedtothem,becomeintegratedandbecomeassumedbytheiruserstobenormative.Atleastonecategoryofcolonowarecanbetrackedinthisway,thecerámicacriollamentionedbyJonathanD.HillinhisdiscussionofAmazonia(thisvolume).Theselocallyproduced,hand-builtcookingpotshave
Hybridity,Identity,andArchaeologicalPractice 271
Figure11-2. Colonoware vessels combining European formal elements (flat based pitcher form with strap handle, flat-based cups; other examples not shown include vases and olla forms) and both Caribbean and possibly Central American decorative traditions and forms (ca. 1520–1560, Concepción de la Vega, Dominican Republic). For illustrations of other examples see Deagan (2002b).
Figure11-1. Colonoware vessel com-bining European formal elements (flat based pitcher form with a strap han-dle) and local Native American (San Mar cos) paste type, stamped decorative elements, and hand-built, low-fired pro-duction technology (seventeenth centu-ry, San Juan del Puerto, Florida).
272 K. Deagan
beendocumentedthroughouttheregionsofAmericasubjecttoSpanishcoloniza-tionbeginningintheearlycolonialera,includingsitesinHispaniola(Ortega1980;Smith1995);Cuba(Domínguez1980;Romero1981);PuertoRico(Solís1999);Mex-ico(Rodríguez-Alegría2005);Argentina(Senatore1995);Panama(LineroBaroni2001);ElSalvador(Card2007);Columbia(Thierrenetal.2002);Venezuela(Vargasetal.1998);andelsewhere(Figures11-4and11-5). Thesewaresandtheirformshavepersistedandarestillregularlyusedtodayinmostoftheseregions,arestillreferredtoascerámic criolla,andareconsideredanormalandinevitableaspectofhouseholdlife.Tocontemporaryusersthesearenothybridceramicsbutarerathertheunremarkableandexpectedcookingpotterypeopleuse.Thusthetransitionfromhybridityto“traditional”isanotherrichpotentialfocusofstudy,onethatmaysuccessfullytrackthetransitionfromoneidentitytoanother.
TheToolbox
OneofJebCard’sexhortationstotheauthorsofthesechapterswastoconsiderpracticalapproachesbywhicharchaeologistscouldusefullyaddresshy-bridmaterialculture,intheinterestofbuildingatoolboxofconceptsandmethods.Althoughtheparticipantshereremaininvigoratinglydiverseintheirapproaches,itseemsthatcertainconceptualandmethodologicalthreadsdo,infact,runthroughtheirwork.Iwillofferafewobservationsontheseinconcluding. Formostarchaeologists,themostusefuloperationaldefinitionofhybrid mate-rial cultureinvolvestheintegrationofmultipleandrecognizablydistinctantecedentmaterialtraditions.Hybridmaterialculturealsoseemsmostusefullycategorizedasaproductofmulticulturalengagement.Hybridphysicalobjectsmanifestdistincttechnologicalandsocialattributesatspecificlocalscales,buttheysharealargerexpressivemeaningforunderstandingsrelatedtoculturalexchangeandcreativity.
Figure11-3. Tonolá Bruñida ware (Guadalajara Polychrome, ca. 1700, St. Augustine).
Hybridity,Identity,andArchaeologicalPractice 273
Figure11-5. Cerámica criolla from sixteenth-century Panamá La Vieja, Panamá. (Courtesy of Beatríz Rovira.)
Figure11-4. Example of cerámica criolla in use in the Dominican Republic (Habichuelera form, 1995).
274 K. Deagan
Hybridmaterialculturedoesnothaveanecessaryassociationwithidentityconstructionoridentitytransformation,sinceitcanalsoreflectcreativity,innova-tion,emulationandcommercialproduction.Distinguishingtheseappearstobelargelydependentonunderstandingboththepowerrelationsandsocialrelationsinthecontextsofproductionand,atthesametime,thecommunity-widepatternsinthecontextsofuse. Wemustbeattentivetohybridincorporationandidentityshiftinallthegroupsinvolvedinpluralisticculturalengagement,regardlessoftheirassumedpositionsofpower.Andfinally,itisusefultorecognizethathybridityinmaterialculture(andparticularlyformsthatsignalgroupidentity)eventuallyevolveintonormativeness,underscoringthealwayspresentandalwayscriticalimportanceoftightlycontrolleddiachronicandcontextualarchaeologicalanalysis.
References
Alexander,RaniT.1998 Afterword:TowardanArchaeologicalTheoryofCultureContact.InStudies in
Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology,editedbyJamesCusick,pp.476–495.OccasionalPaperNo.25.CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations,SouthernIllinoisUniversity,Carbondale.
Card,Jeb2007 TheCeramicsofColonialCiudadVieja,ElSalvador:CultureContactandSocial
ChangeinMesoamerica.UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation,DepartmentofAnthropol-ogy,TulaneUniversity,NewOrleans.
Charleton,Thomas1979 TonaláBrunidaWare:PastandPresent.Archaeology32(1):45–53.
Deagan,Kathleen2002a Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean: 1. Ceramics and Glass-
ware,2nded.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.2002b LaVegaCerámicaIndo-Hispano—AnEarlySixteenthCenturyCaribbean
Colono-Ware.InCeramics in America2002,editedbyRobertHunter,pp.195–198.ChipstoneFoundationwithUniversityPressofNewEngland,Hanover,NewHamp-shire.
2003 TransformationofEmpire:TheSpanishColonialProjectinAmerica.Historical Archaeology37(4):3–13.
Domínguez,Lourdes1980 CerámicadetransculturacióndelsitiocolonialCasadelaObrapia.InCuba
Arqueologica2,pp.33–50.EditorialOriente,SantiagodeCuba,Cuba.Fairbanks,Charles
1962 AColono-IndianWareMilkPitcher.Florida Anthropologist15:103–106.GarcíaSaíz,MaríaConcepción
2003 MexicanCeramicsinSpain.InCerámica y Cultura,editedbyRobinGavin,DonnaPiece,andAlfonsoPlueguezelo,pp.186–203.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,Al-buquerque.
Geertz,Clifford1973 The Interpretation of Culture: Selected Issues.Basic,NewYork.
Kuper,Adam2003 TheReturnoftheNative.Current Anthropology44:389–402.
Hybridity,Identity,andArchaeologicalPractice 275
Larsen,Clark,MarkC.Griffin,DaleL.Hutchinson,VivanE.Noble,LynetteNorr,RobertF.Pastor,ChristopherB.Ruff,KatherineT.Russell,MargaretSchoeninger,MichealSchultz,ScottW.Simpson,andMarkTeaford
2001 FrontiersofContact:BioarchaeologyofSpanishFlorida.Journal of World Prehis-tory15:69–123.LineroBaroni,M.
2001 Cerámica criolla: Muestra excavada en el pozo de las Casas de Terrín.RevistaCantoRodadoNo.1.PatronatoPanamaViejo,Panama.
Linton,Ralph1943 NativisticMovements.American Anthropologist45:230–240.
McEwan,BonnieG.2001 TheSpiritualConquestofFlorida.American Anthropologist103:633–644.
Mouer,L.Daniel,MaryEllenN.Hodges,StephenR.Potter,SusanL.HenryRenaud,IvorNoëlHume,DennisJ.Pogue,MarthaW.McCartney,andThomasE.Davidson
1999 ColonowarePottery,ChesapeakePipes,and“UncriticalAssumptions.”InI, Too, Am America: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life,editedbyTheresaSingleton,pp.83–115.UniversityPressofVirginia,Charlottesville.
NoëlHume,Ivor1962 AnIndianWareoftheColonialPeriod.Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological
Society of Virginia17:2–14.Ortega,Elpidio
1980 Introducción a la loza común o alfareria en el período colonial de Santo Domingo.FundaciónOrtegaAlvarez,SantoDomingo,DominicanRepublic.
Rice,Prudence1987 Pottery Analysis.UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago.
Rodríguez-Alegría,Enrique2005 EatingLikeanIndian.Current Anthropology46:551–573.
Romero,Leandro1981 Sobrelasevidenciasarqueológicasdecontactoytransculturaciónenelámbito
Cubano.Santiago44:77–108.Sackett,James
1982 ApproachestoStyleinLithicArchaeology.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology1:59–112.
1985 StyleandEthnicityintheKalahari:AReplytoWiessner.American Antiquity50:154–159.
Senatore,MaríaXimena1995 Tecnologías nativas y estratégias de ocupación española en la región del Rio de la Plata.
HistoricalArchaeologyinLatinAmerica,Vol.11,StanelySouth,generaleditor,SouthCarolinaInstituteforArchaeologyandAnthropology,Columbia.
Smith,Greg1995 IndiansandAfricansatPuertoReal:TheCeramicEvidence.InPuerto Real: The
Archaeology of a Sixteenth-Century Town in Hispaniola,editedbyKathleenDeagan,pp.335–374.UniversityPressofFlorida,Gainesville.
Solís,CarlosM.1999 CriolloPotteryfromSanJuandePuertoRico.InAfrican Sites Archaeology in the
Caribbean,editedbyJayHaviser,pp.131–142.MarkusWeiner,Princeton,NewJersey.South,Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology.Academic,NewYork.Stojanowski,ChristopherM.
2005a TheBioarchaeologyofIdentityinSpanishColonialFlorida:SocialandEvo-lutionaryTransformationbefore,during,andafterDemographicCollapse.American Anthropologist107:417–431.
276 K. Deagan
2005b Biocultural Histories in La Florida : A Bioarchaeological Perspective.UniversityofAlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.
Thierren,Monika,ElenaUprimy,JimenaLoboGuerrero,MaríaFernandaSalamanca,FelipeGaitán,andMartaFandiño
2002 Catálago de cerámica colonial y republicana de la Nueva Granada.FundacióndeInvestigacionesArqueológicasNacionales,Bogotá.
Thomas,DavidH.1988 SaintsandSoldiersatSantaCatalina:HispanicDesignsforColonialAmerica.
InThe Recovery of Meaning,editedbyMarkLeoneandParkerPotter,pp.73–140.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
vanDommelen,Peter2005 ColonialInteractionsandHybridPractices:PhoenicianandCarthaginianSettle-
mentintheAncientMediterranean.InThe Archaeology of Colonial Encounters. Com-parative Perspectives,editedbyGilStein,pp.109–141.SchoolofAmericanResearch,SantaFe.
Vargas,Iraida,MarioSanoja,GabrielaAlvarado,andMileneMontilla1998 Arqueología de Caracas. San Pablo Teatro Municipial,Vol.2.BibliotecadelaAca-
démiaNacionaldeHistória#178,Caracas,Venezuela.Wallace,AnthonyF.C.
1956 RevitalizationMovements.American Anthropologist58:264–281.
Related Documents
