Cultural Contact Research Paper

1. Introduction

The focus of culture contact, as currently defined, is the study of culture change or persistence within the context of contact situations involving different cultures and diverse types of interaction. This research has been and continues to be motivated by the overarching and longstanding desire within the field of anthropology to understand how and why culture changes. Much of the recent effort in this field has been on early encounters of indigenous peoples in colonial contexts. Numerous factors were involved in the early exploration and eventual settlement of landscapes all over the world including the discovery and exploitation of resources, the religious or spiritual con-version of Indians, trading, and gaining access to sea routes or ports. In some cases military objectives often necessitated the allegiance of the native population or the use of native peoples to buffer between European military territories. In other cases it was more expedient to use missionaries to control native groups than to establish forts and use military might (Milanich 1995, p. 165). Native encounters with European, African, and Asian peoples in early contact settings can be used to address issues regarding the founding and development of the resultant multiethnic colonial communities.

2. Historical Perspective

As late as 1938 the intensive study of contact between peoples was a ‘relatively recent development in the anthropological repertory’ (Herskovits 1937, p. 1). One term often used within these studies was ‘acculturation.’ Herskovits, however, found this word to be ‘peculiarly American’ and noted that the British had consistently preferred to employ the term ‘culture-contact’ (Herskovits 1937, p. 2). The subtle differences in these terms mark a trajectory that influences culture-contact perspectives to this day. While acculturation may be taken to refer to the ways in which some cultural aspect is taken into a culture and adjusted and fitted, it also implies some relative cultural equality between the giving and receiving cultures. In 1928 the word ‘acculturation’ was defined as ‘the approximation of one human race or tribe to another in culture or arts by contact.’ However, a later edition of Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1934) added the phrase ‘to cause or induce a people to adopt the culture of another’ (Herskovits 1937, p. 2).

In 1940 acculturation was viewed as a process within a paradigm that saw cultures as ‘infinitely perfectable’ and in which rates of change will differ in ‘so-called primitive cultures’ (Linton 1940, p. 468). A sense of the developing colonial and unidirectional emphasis that characterized early culture contact studies might be inferred from a statement made by Malinowski in 1945. ‘The study of culture change must take into account three orders of reality: the impact of the higher culture; the substance of native life on which it is directed; and the phenomenon of autonomous change resulting from the reaction between the two cultures’ (1945, p. 26).

By 1955 American archaeologists had begun to recognize the complexity of contact contexts and identified eight types of culture contact situations: including intrusive culture, resident culture, site-unit intrusion, and trait-unit intrusion (Woodbury 1955). By 1961 the notions of ‘differential change and both directed and nondirected situations’ that have since been adopted were being acknowledged by many anthropologists and archaeologists (Spicer 1961).

3. Current Theory And Research

Today, culture contact studies are recognized as being well suited to evaluate and refine theoretical and methodological approaches to culture change and persistence in archaeology. The current archaeological approach subscribes to the potential of multiple lines of evidence by integrating data from archaeology, ethnography, ethnohistory, linguistics, biological anthropology, and native oral traditions. While no single theoretical position captures the field, certain ubiquitous issues include: (a) world economy; intensification of regional exchange and innovations in material culture, (b) demographic collapse; changing natural landscapes and lethal epidemics, and (c) implications of demographic collapse for social disruption and reformulation including native responses of resistance, domination, cooperation, and cultural transformation.

3.1 World Economy And The Intensification Of Regional Exchange And Innovations In Material Culture

Many recent archaeological studies of contact contexts have been informed by a colonialist perspective of core–periphery relationships as exemplified in World Systems theory (Wallerstein 1974, Wolf 1982). Wallerstein’s world systems theory remains the most influential work in archaeological studies of core– periphery relationships. While these studies have expanded the scope of research, some problems remain. Specific problems with colonialist models include (a) insular models of culture change that treat frontiers as passive recipients of core innovations, (b) the reliance on macroscales of analysis employed in frontier research, and (c) the expectation of sharp frontier boundaries visible in material culture (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995, p. 471). The study of material culture is the unique domain of archaeology and often the influence of material culture on social dynamics is under-rated. Material items are active symbols in broadcasting and even negotiating a person’s identity in culture contact situations. How-ever, the impact of introduced materials in these contexts is becoming well recognized. For example, the impact of the introduction of brass and iron kettles by French traders was so great that the cessation of ceramic production among aboriginal populations often occurred in less than a generation (Walthall and Emerson 1992, p. 6). Or, as Hantman suggests, copper could have been a key symbol, if not a source, of power and authority in matters secular and sacred—a critical variable in the dynamics of Jamestown (1990, p. 685). Not only items or categories of materials but architecture, roads, villages, and the spatial distribution of materials and villages on the landscape may reflect or influence similar changes.

3.2 Demographic Collapse, Lethal Epidemics, And Changing Natural Landscapes

Colonists brought with them pathogens that escaped from their original hosts to invade new territory. Because the natives lacked immunity to the introduced viruses and germs, they often succumbed in large numbers (Dobyns 1983, p. 8). Epidemics spread along established trade routes throughout the larger regions, and major outbreaks occurred at varying intervals, some striking at least once every generation. These events often left ‘niches’ to fill or made inoperative many conventional understandings evolved by large populations (Dobyns 1983). Any respectable theory that attempts to explain the European demographic advance has to provide explanations for the frequent demoralization and often annihilation of indigenous populations, as well as the ‘stunning’ success of European agriculture in colonialist territories (Crosby 1986).

3.3 Implications Of Demographic Collapse For Social Disruption And Reformulation Including Native Responses Of Resistance, Domination, And Cooperation

Archaeology has a critical role in addressing change in these contexts of social disruption and reformulation. It is only through analysis of the past that we can assess the precontact social structure, evidence of change, and the accuracy of the ethnohistoric or documentary record. As for native responses, the range of variability available to all people must be attributed to indigenous populations. These would include the possibilities of resistance, domination, and cooperation. For example, sedentary farming societies fit better into the colonial mission system than groups who were not sedentary agriculturalists, and attempts to establish missions among nonagriculturalists was not always successful (Milanich 1995). Revolts, resistance to tribute demands, conscripted labor, and threats to power and status were all potential responses. Brumfiel (1994) has summarized the importance of factional competition in the transformation of societies. These strategies include intermarriage, the creation of exchange partnerships, and the development of work cooperatives.

4. Some Problems And Future Directions

A discussion of how issues relating to archaeological approaches to culture contact articulate with the greater theoretical agendas that dominate anthropology today leads to the recognition of methodological issues or problems. While recognizing the great potential for an archaeology of pluralism, two issues were raised recently about the theoretical models and methodological practices employed in the study of material culture in multiethnic contexts. The first issue concerned the development of more sophisticated ‘contextual’ approaches to study pluralism, which can compliment and broaden our current focus beyond artifact-based analyses (Lightfoot 1995, pp. 202–10). The second issue involved the promotion of multi-scalar research that may enable archaeologists to address not only macro-scale processes of world systems and colonial policies, but also micro-scale practices of individual intentionality and social action that are critical components of ‘encounters’ in pluralistic settings (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995, pp. 477–88).

For example, one approach builds on a crucial tenet of practice theory—that individuals will enact and construct their underlying organizational principles and worldviews in the ordering of daily life. By examining the organization of daily life in archaeological contexts—the spatial layout of residential space, the reordering of domestic tasks, the structure of trash disposal—we can critically evaluate the nature and magnitude of culture change and persistence in contact settings (Lightfoot et al. 1998, pp. 216–17).

For other scholars, changes in economic activities are changes in the structure of meaning. Debates over historical process often center on whether internal or external agents are precipitators of historical change. However scholars approach historical processes, they realize now that they were wrong in the past to assume that any culture has been isolated from the rest of the world or that change was unidirectional. Future directions involve issues relating to a redefined ‘historical anthropology’ and an increased interest in the development and negotiation of status hierarchies, ethnic identities, and gender relations in pluralistic colonial communities.

In summary, the current archaeological approaches to culture contact embrace a ‘contextual’ and holistic approach that integrates multiple lines of evidence and multiple perspectives.

Bibliography:

1. Brumfiel E M 1994 Factional competition and political development in the New World: an introduction. In: Brumfiel E M, Fox J W (eds.) Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
2. Crosby A W 1986 Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
3. Dobyns H F 1983 Widowing the coveted land. In: Dobyns H F (ed.) Their Numbers Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North America. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN in cooperation with the Newberry Library Center for the History of the American Indian, Chicago, pp. 8–32
4. Hantman J L 1990 Between Powhatan and Quirank: Reconstructing Monacan culture and history in the context of Jamestown. American Anthropologist 92: 676–90
5. Herskovits M J 1937 The problem. In: Herskovits M J (ed.) Acculturation: The Study of Culture Contact. J. J. Augustin Publisher, New York, pp. 1–32
6. Lightfoot K G 1995 Culture contact studies: Redefining the relationship between prehistoric and historical archaeology. American Antiquity 60(20): 199–217
7. Lightfoot K G, Martinez A 1995 Frontiers and boundaries in archaeological perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 471–92
8. Lightfoot K G, Martinez A, Schiff A M 1998 Daily practice and material culture in pluralistic social settings: an archaeological study of culture change and persistence from Fort Ross, California. American Antiquity 63(2): 199–222
9. Linton R 1963 Acculturation and the process of culture change. In: Linton R (ed.) Acculturation in Se en American Indian Tribes. D. Appleton-Century Co., New York, pp. 463–82
10. Malinowski B 1945 The Dynamics of Culture Change. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
11. Milanich J 1995 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL
12. Spicer E H (ed.) 1961 Perspectives in American Indian Culture Change. (A Summer Research Seminar), (Albuquerque 1956) University of Chicago Press, Chicago
13. Wallerstein I 1974 The Modern World-System. Academic Press, New York, Vol. 1
14. Walthall J A, Emerson T E 1992 Indians and French in the Midcontinent. In: Walthall J A, Emerson T E (eds.) Calumet and Fleur-delys: Archaeology of Indian and French Contact in the Midcontinent. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1–13
15. Wolf E 1982 Iberians in America (Chapter 5) The fur trade (Chapter 6). In: Wolf E (ed.) Europe and the People without History. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 127–95
16. Woodbury R B (ed.) 1955 Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, no. 11, Seminars in Archaeology