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

240 Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman missionary claims regarding the growth of mission herds in the late eighteenth century were probably not exaggerated. It is not certain at this time, however, how intensively herds were managed at the mission. The osteological evidence from the mission does indicate that animals were slaughtered locally, using Spanish technologies . As observed previously, during peaceful times herds were likely allowed to graze widely, perhaps without direct human involvement except during seasonal roundups for branding and slaughter. During times of significant raiding, livestock may have been kept close to the mission and required more care to maintain, as well as to protect crops. Despite the success of animal husbandry at the mission, the hunting of wild resources continued through the height of the mission period. As observed earlier, emphasis fell on locally available resources; all of the taxa identified in the assemblage likely lived just outside the mission boundaries, although some may have been more abundant in upland areas. Mission fields, as well as the Santa Cruz riparian zone, very likely attracted animals within local range of missionized O’odham hunters. The picture painted by the zooarchaeological remains is one based on animal husbandry and opportunistic exploitation of wild animals within and near the mission. discUssion and conclUsion Conversion to Christianity was only one aspect of the missionaries’ strategy . Friars themselves acknowledged that “pagans” could be saved only by being “civilized”; by adopting Spanish customs, dress, and language; and by being converted to Roman Catholicism (Galgano 2005:38). Baptized Native Americans were not considered fully Christian until they adopted the Spanish way of life (Weber 2005:93). Thus the practices of daily life, including landscape use, were as indicative of missionary success as was religious conversion. Spanish missionaries also endeavored to “civilize” the landscapes around missions , beginning with the naming of missions and visitas and the building of rudimentary chapels. Missionaries then sought to reconstitute Native life in a way that fit their expectations of civilization by consolidating dispersed settlements, introducing European agricultural and animal husbandry practices, and demanding that neophytes settle permanently. Even the physical layout of missions reflected European ideals concerning landscape use. Buildings, walls, gardens, and fields were intended to make order out of perceived natural “chaos.” However, the dichotomy of “savage” and “civilized” was not absolute. Lands located closest to the mission compound, such as the mission garden, appear to have been more closely managed than those more distant from the mission core. In addition, the presence of wild animals within the mission compound 241 landscape Use at san agUstín area suggests that the missionaries sanctioned at least some hunting activities. If, as suggested earlier, the wild assemblage from the mission reflects a garden hunting strategy, the missionaries may not have objected to the capture of wild animals within managed landscapes such as fields and gardens, particularly when the animals in question were killed in the context of protecting mission resources. In other regions where resources were scarce or where livestock did not thrive, missionaries permitted neophytes greater leeway to hunt and gather wild foods (Weber 2005:100–101). Because the animal remains from San Agustín may in part represent refuse from communal consumption activities, the assemblage suggests that wild meats contributed, at least on occasion, to meals at the mission and perhaps to meals consumed by the priests. This was not, however, entirely incompatible with contemporary European worldviews. In Europe during this time period, the meat of wild game was considered high-status food and was usually accessible only to the landowning classes. Elites held exclusive rights to the wild game within their lands, and the poaching of game on elite land was a punishable offense (Coates 1998:47). Therefore, the incorporation of limited amounts of game meat was likely compatible with the missionaries’ past experiences, particularly of those born to elite families in Europe (Galgano 2005:32). It is possible that the missionaries even tolerated some short-term O’odham neophyte hunting forays into upland areas away from the mission to capture deer; however, as observed earlier, these animals can also be taken as part of a garden hunting strategy. The O’odham gradually adopted a relationship with their landscape that reflected European ideals concerning landscape use as interpreted by the missionaries . O’odham landscape use appears to have contracted over time with missionization , and little evidence from San Agustín indicates retention of the normal pattern of seasonal transhumance that was the sustainable strategy of the O’odham before...

Share