Founding and development of the colonies in the 17th century; 18th century colonial life. Develop skill in written and oral discourse. Special attention to family experiences, political agendas, and economic contributions of women and to social construction of gender identities.
We are grateful to both Carson and Marley R. Brown III for their enthusiastic support of this project. We would never have reached this point had it not been for Greg Brown, who had the unenviable job of putting everything into PageMaker and ensuring that this volume was ready to go to press. David Brown took on the job of designing the cover with little warning, and under much duress.
Thanks for bailing us out, Dave. This volume was the result of a session on ethnicity held at the Society for Historical Archaeology conference in Cincinnati. We thank these individuals for their participation in the session, and for helping to provide the basic foundation from which this volume grew.
Fraser Neiman and Robert L. Schuyler served as discussants on the panel, and we deeply appreciate their initial feedback on all of the papers, and on their willingness to contribute to this volume. Thank you all for staying committed to this project, for your patience, and for coming through as strongly as you did.
Schuyler, University of Pennsylvania Since historical archaeology has expanded its subject matter by moving beyond basic culture history to emphasize a number of central research topics.
These themes are not limited to the field of historical archaeology and archaeologists, both prehistoric and historical, are merely following the lead of current scholarship, especially the work of historians and some cultural anthropologists. Topics covered, or potential future additions, include ethnicity, class, gender, age cohorts, race, occupations, and a series of categories such as nationality, religion and political groupings that may or may not be subsumed under these more generalized types.
One of the first research subjects selected by historical archaeologists was ethnicity, and it continues to occupy the center of topical research, although the study of class, a related subject, is growing in popularity.
This set of papers by six younger scholars all approach ethnicity as both a significant factor in human culture history and a difficult problem for archaeologists.
Is ethnicity a surface phenomenon, fully active on a conscious level of behavior, purposely manipulated in a fluid environment of power and class—a suit of cultural clothing worn and changed at will and only having meaning relative to other groups otherwise clothed?
Or, is ethnicity a deeply rooted, stable phenomenon grounded in enculturation and history—a manifestation of the bedrock of culture itself? Which end of this spectrum of definitions a researcher selects will have a major impact on how one approaches the topic from fieldwork to synthesis and interpretation, as well as how successful archaeology is in recognizing material manifestations of ethnicity.
Six case studies are offered in this monograph. They range across the formation of "creole" society in colonial Virginia, Native Americans interacting with Anglo-American power centers, the ability or lack of ability of enslaved Africans to preserve or de novo generate their own cultural identity, or more specifically, to maintain their most basic beliefs, to a discussion of ethnic variation internal to Euro-American culture, a theme that has been relatively neglected.
This range of essays takes the reader on a quite varied and fascinating exploration, but one unified by the same cultural region in North America.
Virginia and South Carolina have both been well explored by both historians and archaeologists. Metz, Kern, Horning, Heath, Samford and Steen are all to be congratulated for an insightful if tentative set of essays.
Historical Archaeology, Identity Formation, and the Interpretation of Ethnicity, because of its authors and two organizers-editors, is a solid contribution to the growing literature on the ability of historical archaeologists to explore one of the most basic human categorizations to appear since the rise of complex societies.
Introduction Several years ago while visiting a friend excavating a sugar plantation in the mountains of Jamaica, a middle-aged man approached me at a rural taxi stand.
I was not sure exactly what he wanted to know, so I told him I was an American from the United States. I explained I lived in the state of California. The man laughed, turned to the twenty or so people gathered around us, and said, "See, this bloody ras don't know who he is!
Yet, although the man took the opportunity to ridicule an outsider and in doing so, to advance his reputation within his community, in essence, we as historical archaeologists ask that same simple question of the people who formed the archaeological sites we excavate, "Who you?
Some seventeen years ago Robert Schuyler compiled and edited fourteen essays in a volume entitled Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: As its title suggests, the book introduced a variety of historical archaeological treatments of the topic of ethnicity, exclusively focused on African- and Asian-American sites.
The book, like this compilation, was in part a product of its time. It was published while Iran held 52 Americans hostage, while Nelson Mandela was just another forgotten prisoner in an entrenched South African system of violent apartheid, and while Dublin, not Beirut or Sarajevo, was the world's most notorious ethnic battleground.
Almost twenty years later, ethnicity remains at the forefront of the social, political, economic, and religious agenda around the globe, although the sites of its turbulence continue to change.
Dozens of clashes motivated by ethnic issues occur everyday, resulting in ethnic convergence at its most deadly. It would be comforting to think that the distance between "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia in the s and the expressions of ethnic identity on an eighteenth-century Virginia plantation or in the hollows of Depression-era Appalachia are hardly comparable.
Yet the germ of conflict in both locales, separated as they are by time and circumstance, is distinctly ethnic. The word ethnicity, and its attendant terms ethnic group and ethnic identity, are relatively new idioms still in semantic flux.
The term ethnicity emerged in the mid-twentieth century, but the exact origin is unknown see Sollorsfootnote 2. The word only first appeared in English dictionaries in Glazer and Moynihan Although Indian societies were willing to seek to destroy an enemy, including indiscriminate killing, patterns of restraint inherent to their social authority, cultural values, and methods of warfare tended to limit escalation and the overall level of violence.
The office of Indian agent for South Carolina was scarcely eight years old when Thomas Nairne and John Wright, the only two men ever to hold the position, were both killed in in the Yamasee town of Pocotaligo in the opening drama of the Yamasee War.
The late 20th-century conflicts in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and India were similar in that each was caused by the deforestation conducted by multinational companies collapse of communism. Keeley describes several styles of primitive combat such as small raids, large raids, and massacres.
All of these forms of warfare were used by primitive societies, a finding supported by other researchers.  Keeley explains that early war raids were not well organized, as the participants did. Sep 17, · What were the principal causes of colonial warfare and violence of the late 17th century?
some details please? what were the principal causes of colonial warfare and violence of the late 17th century? please give me reasons and a little bit of lausannecongress2018.com: Resolved.
Publications of The Colonial Society of Massachusetts Volume 63 Seventeenth-Century New England a conference held by The Colonial Society of Massachusetts june 18 and 19,