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

Initial contacts between Native Americans and Europeans set in motion a process of acute cultural transformation for indigenous peoples. These contacts were followed by widespread death from European-introduced diseases, displacement of local populations, reorganization of existing political economies, introduction of new material goods and technologies, and the emergence of political confederacies and ethnic identities. Although these events were profound and widespread, scholars interested in documenting the nature of post-contact Native American culture change are faced with several daunting research challenges. One of the principal impediments is a paucity of historic documents relating to the period immediately after initial Native American-European contacts. For most Native American peoples of the Southeast, almost two centuries passed between their ¤rst interactions with Europeans in the sixteenth century and the production of detailed historical documents in the eighteenth century (a temporal span commonly referred to as the Protohistoric period). Some accounts date from the opening moments of contact, others from almost two hundred years later, and there is little in the way of historical documentation to connect these disparate depictions of Native American cultures. In addition to troublesome gaps in the historical record, the archaeological record presents its own dif¤culties with regard to protohistoric culture change. Chief among these impediments are divisions within the discipline of archaeology that have marginalized protohistoric studies. Theoretical and methodological boundaries between prehistoric and historic archaeologies have made studies of protohistoric phenomena problematic. Prehistoric archaeology has a traditional bias toward “untainted” pre-contact cultures, while historic archaeology has been biased toward indigenous cultures with suitable historical records (Beaudry 1988; Deagan 1988; Euler 1972:202; Galloway 1993:101; C. Hudson and T esser 1994a; Lightfoot 1995; Trigger 1982:13, 1985:118; W. R. Wood 1990). Such disciplinary divisions, coupled with other research obstacles, have limited archaeological and historical inquiry into protohistoric culture change, resulting in a protohistoric Southeast which was, 1 / Protohistory and Archaeology An Overview Cameron B. Wesson and Mark A. Rees until recently, a liminal terra incognita. As C. Hudson and T esser (1994a:2) point out, the Protohistoric period represents “the forgotten centuries” of southeastern studies, lying somewhere between contact and colonization. Research addressing the cultural dynamics of the Protohistoric period has accelerated dramatically with the intense scholarly attention directed at the recent quincentennial anniversary of Columbus’s ¤rst voyage to the Americas. Growing in number particularly over the past decade, archaeological studies of the Protohistoric period are now at the forefront of the ¤eld (Galloway 1993, 1997a; C. Hudson 1997; C. Hudson and T esser 1994b; Lightfoot 1995; Lightfoot et al. 1998; Rogers and Wilson 1993; B. D. Smith 1990; D. H. Thomas 1990, 1991; Trigger 1985:116; Wilcox and Massey 1981; W. R. Wood 1990). Archaeologists are now focusing on the Protohistoric period throughout the Southeast, armed with an improved understanding of the complexity of culture contact situations and important new theoretical paradigms that attempt to reveal Native American perspectives on protohistoric culture change. This volume presents current research examining protohistoric Native American culture change across the Southeast. Each contribution presents a unique perspective on protohistoric culture change, revealing how the knowledgeable use of historical documents, innovative archaeological research, and emerging theoretical perspectives in anthropology can be combined to better understand this crucial period . The remainder of this chapter examines the theoretical and methodological factors that have led to the present state of protohistoric studies in southeastern archaeology and places the individual contributions to this volume within this framework. In conclusion, we propose an approach to protohistoric culture change built on the analysis of indigenous political dynamics that synthesizes culture historical and processual explanations. Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and Protohistory Archaeologists and historians have long acknowledged that European contact acutely affected Native American cultures (Brasser 1978; Crane 1981; Hickerson 1997; Phillips et al. 1951:419–421). However, two diametrically opposed interpretations of these effects have permeated anthropological research for the majority of this century. An earlier generation of scholars downplayed the disruption European contacts represented to native cultures, while a later generation has exaggerated these same impacts. These differences in interpretation appear to be based more on the theoretical approaches and a priori assumptions of individual researchers than on discernable differences in the archaeological or historical records. Observing these changes from the theoretical perspective of acculturation that dominated their era, earlier scholars viewed Native American culture change as the shift from indigenous practices to the adoption of Euroamerican cultural practices. 2 / C. B. Wesson and M. A. Rees Studying protohistoric culture change was limited...

Share