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

Along the lower Atlantic coast, the period between ca. a.d. 1500 and 1600 was a time of intermittent, sometimes violent, contact between Spanish and French explorers and Native Americans. This relatively brief period nevertheless produced an extensive documentary record. Use of these documents can be frustrating however, as written information is often insuf¤cient or contradicts archaeological data. This holds true for a number of research questions. Four are considered here: site seasonality, sedentism, subsistence strategies, and the timing and effects of epidemics. Archaeological and ethnohistoric evidence are reviewed and the epistemological biases of each are considered in an evaluation of these critical issues. Archaeology done in conjunction with documentary resources in North America, a.k.a. Historical Archaeology, has been under critical scrutiny since its conception (see, e.g., Cleland 2001a; Deagan 1982 and Little 1996 for reviews). A great deal of paper has been generated as Historical Archaeologists struggled to conceive, communicate, and convince others of the relationship of the components of the discipline. After more than three decades, concerns about what questions are most appropriately addressed with the databases, and how to most effectively integrate archaeological and ethnohistoric information, continue to generate commentary (e.g., Deetz 1988; Knapp 1992; Little 1992, 1996; S. M. Wilson 1993; S. M. Wilson and Rogers 1993; T. C. Young 1988). Though different authors stress different aspects, it seems a consensus has emerged—one that accepts the validity of the distinct kinds of questions generated by descriptive, processual, and post-processual archaeologies, as well as particularistic and Annales-school histories (cf. Cleland 2001b). In addition, most agree that the role of each disciplinary database— whether as supplementation (as handmaiden) or for use in the reconstruction of past lifeways, the determination of general societal or cultural evolutionary trends, testing scienti¤c principles, or studying cognitive patterns in the past (Deagan 1982)—can change as research focuses shift and different aspects of complementarity emerge. 3 / Seasonality, Sedentism, Subsistence, and Disease in the Protohistoric Archaeological versus Ethnohistoric Data along the Lower Atlantic Coast Rebecca Saunders Despite increased terminological sophistication, in practice many studies combining archaeological and documentary evidence exhibit the same problems recognized twenty years ago. Published reports are often “seriously unbalanced—relying largely on either archaeological or historical information—or are frustratingly segregated into separate sets of insights deriving from separate data sets” (Deagan 1997:4). The lopsided quality of these studies is attributable to a number of things. For instance, many archaeologists simply do not have the time to develop the skills to give them access to primary documents or to use these skills if they have them. Recognizing this, many have collaborated with historians studying similar topics. However, with some felicitous exceptions, collaboration with historians has not been intensive enough or comprehensive enough to promote a balanced appraisal of the data of the past. While we have come a long way since arguing with each other over which database was the more “objective,” historians and archaeologists have failed to convey to each other an appreciation of the pernicious biases present in their respective databases. T o archaeologists, the richness of the ethnohistoric record is seductive, and we want to believe that we can use documentary information to answer important questions (from the particularistic through the cognitive) about material culture, site locations, demographics, sociopolitical systems, and mind-sets of Native Americans. We have known for years that many of these documents cannot be trusted, even at the level of depictions of material culture (e.g., Milbrath 1989; Sturtevant 1977) or physical characteristics of Native Americans (Iscan and Kessel 1997). Yet many historical archaeological studies continue to take documents at face value, a methodological remnant of the Direct Historical Approach (Galloway 1997a:284). Similarly, though we often lament the biases in the archaeological record—for instance, those introduced through poor recovery techniques in early excavations—we still use the data to make statements (of dubious validity) about past lifeways. T o illustrate these points, I will trace the debate concerning the settlement and subsistence systems and the incidence of epidemic disease among two groups living along the lower Atlantic coast at contact: the Guale of the northern Georgia coast and the Timucua of the southern Georgia and Florida coasts (Figure 3.1). The debate deserves a wide audience, because it exempli¤es the inevitable frustrations involved in attempting to merge documentary and archaeological information. T o anticipate the conclusions: Practically nothing can be taken at face value from either the documentary evidence or...

Share