In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

A second, yet related, issue is the homogeneity of responses to colonialism. Mounting evidence from different areas suggests considerable regional diversity in the rate of population size decline and responses to such a process (Baker and Kealhofer 1996; Milner 1980, 1996; Ramenofsky et al. 2003; Stannard 1991; Walker 2001). Overextrapolation of models developed for one regional context to many different cultural groups inhabiting different environments and living under distinct social and political situations implies a monolithic view of the “colonist” and the “colonized.” This perspective views Europeans as the power wielders and indigenous populations as the passive recipients of their future histories. In other words, the simpli¤ed version of European history—that is, Europeans arrive bringing disease, Native Americans lack immunity to the disease, massive epidemics decimate the native populations, and European domination of North America commences—assumes homogeneity in European New World policy, Native American response to this policy, and uniform underlying Native American social adaptations. There is little sense of agency in such a distillation. The different biological pro¤les documented in this book are contrary to both the pandemicist and monolithicist positions. Health did not uniformly decline in La Florida, and epidemics didnotuniformly ravage indigenous populations in the wake of initial contact. Responses to disease and colonialism were varied and localized. The documented pattern of phenotypic variance transformation was considerably different for Apalachee and Guale, suggesting that the two cannot be con®ated into a pan–La Florida population for microevolutionary or bioarchaeological purposes. In other words, the distinct cultural and political histories of these populations did manifest in the population genetic signatures. Despite my primary position that there was considerable regional variation in mission experience, I also believe that there was a prescribed pathway of change and that the differences observed for Guale and Apalachee are related more to the timing of events, most critically, the timing of population size decline . Consideration of the four missions included in this analysis reveals three distinct pro¤les (see Table 8.1). The ¤rst type of mission is represented by Patale with few burials, no burial disturbance (0 percent), a low rate of burial (3.9/year), a small percentage of burials as a percent of the living population (0.8 percent), a decrease in morbidity, and no change in phenotypic variability in comparison to antecedent populations. Patale represents a mission community not experiencing the typical contact period maladies. A Patale analogue does not exist for Guale either because we simply have not located such a mission or, more likely, because this stage of acculturation was brief or did not exist. The second type of mission is represented by San Luis and Santa Catalina de Guale. Both missions had large numbers of burials, high rates of distur160 Chapter 8 bance (~50 percent), higher rates of burial (18.75 and 7.5/year, respectively), and nearly equivalent burials rates as a percentage of the resident population (~1.5 percent). Both samples demonstrate an increase in phenotypic variation in comparison to antecedent populations. I propose that these cemeteries represent the period of active demographic transformation. Disease and out-migration were common, interaction between disparate cultural groups (both Native American and European) increased, congregation and aggregation of populations increased, and, as the social mechanisms preventing mate exchange broke down, admixture between diverse groups increased. That the pathological data for San Luis and Santa Catalina are not congruent implies some diversity in the mechanisms effecting these changes. The third type of mission is represented by Amelia Island. This mission had an intermediate number of burials, an intermediate rate of disturbance (7.5 percent), a high rate of burial (7.5/year), the largest burial rate as a percentage of the living population (3.7 percent), increasing morbidity, and a decrease in phenotypic variability in comparison to the antecedent population. Such a pro¤le implies acceleration of population size decline and represents the ¤nal stage in the process of demographic collapse. Despite emphasis on the comparative disparity in biological signature pro-¤les, the historical trajectories can be viewed as a continuum of reactions that differed in the timing of initial catalysts. The catalyst for these changes relates to the timing of the onset of population losses, whether owing to mortality or to out-migration. That is, the disparate histories of Apalachee and Guale may simply re®ect the differential onset of the demographic transformation (Figure 8.1). Mission experience was maximally heterogenous before 1650, when Guale was in the midst of the demographic...

Share