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

tWo The Toyah Phase and the Ethnohistorical Record a caSe For populatioN aggregatioN Nancy A. Kenmotsu and John W. Arnn III The variability archaeologists observe in material culture (artifacts, features, use of space, etc.) has long been associated with “social groups, whose boundaries are [believed] marked by distinctive patterns in the archaeological record” (Stark 1998:1). Distinguishing social boundaries in order to understand identity and interaction, particularly conflict, on the Southern Plains, including in the southernmost part of the Plains in central Texas, has assumed a prominent role in anthropological and archaeological studies of this region (Buffalohead 2004; Henning and Thiessen 2004; Kelley 1955; Krieger 1946; Perkins et al. 2008; Spielmann 1991a; Vehik 2002; Wykoff and Hofman 1982). Increasingly, researchers (e.g., Brooks 2002; Vehik 2002; Wade 2003) point to a growing body of evidence from the Southern and Central Plains suggesting that increasing competition over resources shortly after ad 1200 led to population aggregation , with this pattern intensifying after 1450 and continuing through the early nineteenth century. Much of this evidence is supported by historic documents , which are used here and in other regions to inform and refine interpretations of the patterns observed in the archaeological record (e.g., Fowleret al. 1999; Perkins et al. 2008; Rogers and Wilson 1993; Trigger 1989, 2007; Walker 1999). However, as Arnn (2005) points out, many archaeologists in Texas focus their research efforts on subsistence, mobility, technological organization, and other patterns of small-scale groups represented by the Toyah phase (Collins and Ricklis 1994; Jelks 1962; Johnson 1994; Kelley 1947a, 1947b, 1955, 1986; Kelley et al. 1940; Ricklis 1994; Sayles 1935), and it is within this context that the documentary record for central Texas is often brought to bear. In contrast, our study focuses on the documents and what they tell us about the mobility and land tenure of groups in central Texas between 1535 and 1716 by comparing them to the archaeological 20 KeNmotSu aNd arNN record (emphasizing archaeological assemblages as an analytical unit) in order to guide future research. Preliminary results indicate that by the seventeenth century the people in central Texas were being inexorably drawn into much broader changes taking place well to the north and south of them. We begin with a discussion of the pitfalls, but also the value, of using documentary sources and the nature of the documentary record for the greater central Texas region. Then we explore the documentary record for central Texas as it relates to the Toyah phase and what that record may or may not contribute to archaeological interpretations of the assemblages of Toyah groups. The Documentary Record: Pitfalls and Value Added TheToyah phase spans the prehistoric and early historic eras (ad 1300–1700).This bridge into the time when the first Euroamericans traveled across the Rio Grande into the southernmost reaches of the Southern Plains and modern Texas offers researchers historical records and maps to enrich their study of the archaeological record. That benefit should not be ignored or understated. However, like the archaeological record, the documentary record is imperfect. Documentary pitfalls consist of broad concerns that would be considered in any documentary interpretation , but also concerns that are specific to documents fora particular region.The problems with the documentary record have been acknowledged by others (e.g., Barnes et al. 1981; Griffen 2000; Hadley et al. 1997; Henige 1993; Loren 2008; Valdez 1995). But because it can be tempting to overinterpret letters and reports written long ago in an era with values and perspectives unique from our own, some problems bear repeating here. One of the foremost concerns is that most manuscripts related to the time of the Toyah phase were written in Spanish. Only a subset have been translated into English (see discussion in Flint and Flint 2005:5–16). Many archaeologists working north of the Rio Grande are not fluent readers of Spanish, particularly Spanish written prior to modern grammatical and orthographic rules (Haggard 1941:10). These documents also contain abbreviations of hundreds of common words (Arzave 1990; Barnes et al. 1981:19). Although these abbreviations were largely standardized, the same word can have multiple forms, and several abbreviated forms of the same word can appear in the same document. Researchers unfamiliar with these abbreviations can misinterpret whole passages or entire documents. The Spanish were prodigious documenters, but truly original documents can be elusive. They wanted copies of their manuscripts kept locally, but other copies were sent to viceroys in distant capitals and authorities in Spain or Rome. Thus...

Share