Envisioning Colonial Landscapes Using Mission Registers, Radiocarbon, and Stable Isotopes: An Experimental Approach from San Francisco Bay

Abstract

The periodization used to distinguish sites and artifacts as "prehistoric" or "historic" translates to the selection of field methods and analytical techniques. This comes at the expense of developing new approaches to track continuities and adjustments in Native American site use, technologies, and other cultural traditions, such as mobility across an artificial divide between prehistory and history. To evaluate the mobility of Coast Miwok people in colonial San Francisco Bay, California, this article presents an experimental technique that compares radiocarbon and geochemical data from a Late period Phase 2(A.D. 1500-1800) shellmound (CA-MRN-114) to baptismal records from Spanish missions (A.D.l 776-1830s). Supported by eyewitness accounts of native fugitivism, furlough, and foraging at the missions, Coast Miwok baptisms before 1817 are at their lowest during traditional times of mussel harvests. After 1817, a different pattern is examined vis-d-vis the colonial landscapes taking shape in the region. Radiocarbon, geochemical, and documentary evidence supports the conclusion that seasonally oriented Coast Miwok mobility involving the collection of shellfish continued even during missionization. With further refinement, the proposed methodological framework holds promise for documenting patterns that often go unseen in the historical record and enhancing the archaeology of colonialism in North America.

Categorical Denial: Evaluating Post-1492 Indigenous Erasure in the Paper Trail of American Archaeology

“…For chronometric dates, we included sites where researchers reported radiocarbon dates that extend into the colonial period at two standard deviations, as well as obsidian hydration values of ≤ 1.2 microns—designations derived from our research on colonial era sites in the region (Panich, Griffin, and Schneider 2018; Schneider 2015a, 2015b; and see Byrd et al 2018). We acknowledge that this is a liberal approach, but our intent is to broaden the conversation about how archaeologists recognize and record sites of long-term Indigenous occupation.…”

“…At mission sites, the analysis of obsidian and shell beads has demonstrated widespread patterns of exchange and material conveyance that linked Native mission residents to their compatriots living beyond the reach of the mission bell (Arkush 2011; Panich 2014, 2016; Panich, Griffin, and Schneider 2018). Similarly, scholars have documented how Native Californians maintained a presence in their homelands at a range of sites across the colonial-period landscape (Byrd et al 2018; Lightfoot et al 2009; Nelson 2017; Panich and Schneider 2015; Schneider 2015a, 2015b; Schneider and Panich 2019).…”

Unpacking the Bead: Exploring a Glass Bead Assemblage from Mission Santa Cruz, California, Using LA–ICP–MS

“…In the past decade, a growing number of historical archaeologists have started using high-precision AMS radiocarbon dating, portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF), instrument neutron activation analysis (INAA), stable isotope analysis, and other specialized analytical techniques to deepen our understanding of Indigenous-colonial encounters in North America (e.g., Blair 2017; Manning and Hart 2019; Panich 2016; Schneider 2015; Thompson et al 2019; Walder 2018). As more archaeologists sidestep artificial barriers that prevent the adoption of methods and tools traditionally relegated to the “prehistory” subfield, new opportunities are emerging for adding depth and texture to postcontact site chronologies previously based on historical records or diagnostic artifacts alone.…”

Finding Archaeological Relevance during a Pandemic and What Comes After

“…Mobilization to mesa-top refuges ensured access to spaces of protection and spiritual strength for Indigenous peoples throughout the Southwest following the 1680 Pueblo Revolt (e.g., Aguilar and Preucel 2019). Not to be caught flat-footed, Indigenous hunter-gather-fisher-managers of California frequently sequenced their visits to colonial missions—and their trips away from them—to coincide with seasonal harvests of food resources and to carry out mortuary rites, dances, and other social practices beyond the walls (Schneider 2015).…”