Reframing the Protohistoric Period and the (Peri)Colonial Process for the North American Central Plains

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

“…As with our Marin County sample, a careful parsing of the Bay Area's protohistoric sites includes several that do not conform to the traditional use of the term, including ranches operated by Mexican and Russian colonists as well as a cemetery used in the late mission period at Mission San José. At the level of recording, we contend that the term “protohistoric” is too ambiguous to be useful and is conceptually problematic for reasons discussed above (Rubertone 2000:429; Schmidt and Mrozowski 2013:17–19; Silliman 2005:73–74; Trabert 2019:11).…”

“…However, not all sites were in fact colonial, as noted by archaeologists working in regions where Native Americans and newcomers developed distinct patterns of interaction prior to or along the margins of more full-fledged colonial systems (Schurr 2010; and see Jordan 2014). Some researchers have applied the concept of “pericolonial,” suggesting that the term may help archaeologists capture the unique experiences of people who navigated the indirect effects of colonialism as opposed to those who experienced it firsthand (Acabado 2017; Trabert 2019).…”

“…That is, archaeologists can use temporally diagnostic artifacts or chronometric dates to list a site's likely age range(s), particularly given that most sites are recorded during the inventory or evaluation phase, when information might be limited to what can be gleaned from reconnaissance survey or preliminary subsurface testing programs. A calendrical approach may be particularly useful for regions, like the North American Plains, where Indigenous people were not subject to the full brunt of settler colonialism until relatively recently and where archaeologists find the standard prehistoric-protohistoric-historic triad limiting (Scheiber and Finley 2012; Trabert 2019).…”

“…Not all archaeologists, however, are satisfied with the term. Some argue that it perpetuates the same Eurocentric biases as “prehistory” and allows researchers to ignore the issues of process and power inherent in colonial entanglements (Hull 2009:309–310; Mitchell and Scheiber 2010:13–14; Rubertone 2000:429; Schmidt and Mrozowski 2013:17–19; Silliman 2005:73–74; Trabert 2019:11). Still, many site recording systems use “protohistoric” as a temporal designation.…”

The Remains of the Fray: Nascent Colonialism and Heterogeneous Hybridity

“…Acabado attributes these changes largely to trade opportunities introduced by Spanish enclaves in bordering areas, although the Spanish crown exerted minimal influence in the highlands. Sarah Trabert (2018) sees similar processes at work in the migration of a Puebloan group from northern New Mexico to western Kansas in the mid-1600s. Although Spanish encroachments in the Southwest propelled this move, the Puebloan peoples—once established in their new territory—appear to have been peacefully accommodated by the local Ndee peoples.…”