2.8: Historical Archaeology

Alexandra Martin, Ph.D., Strawbery Banke Museum

Paulina Przystupa, Ph.D., Alexandria Archive Institute

Valerie Bondura, Ph.D., Jewish Theological Seminary

Katherine Brewer, M.A., University of New Mexico

Andrew Beaupré, Ph.D., Maine State Museum

Learning Objectives

• Define historical archaeology and discuss its contributions
• Explain how historical archaeologists work with artifacts, written documents, and oral histories
• Discuss examples of historical archaeology in North America

Introduction: What is Historical Archaeology?

Historical archaeology is a subdiscipline of archaeology that includes the study of artifacts, oral histories, and documentary records,among other lines of evidence, to investigate questions about our more recent past. According to Barbara Little, historical archaeologists’ goals include “preserving and interpreting sites, supplementing and challenging the history we know through documents, reconstructing people’s ways of life, improving archaeological methods, and understanding modernization and globalization” (Little 2007, p. 22). Archaeologists who specialize in this type of research are called historical archaeologists. (A historic archaeologist, on the other hand, would refer to someone who did archaeology in the past. For example, the late 18th-century excavations directed by Thomas Jefferson at a burial mound in Monacan Indian territory of what is today known as Virginia could be described as historic archaeology.) (Hantman and Dunham, 1993).

Historical archaeology in North America often involves research on places that have a post-contact occupation, referring to the period after Europeans made contact with the Indigenous people of North America. Contact may include physical interactions, the exchange of trade goods, or the introduction of new plants, animals, and diseases. However, historical archaeology doesn’t automatically begin whenever Europeans arrived somewhere. Many communities around the world have documented history before European contact, but in this chapter we focus on historical archaeological sites from North America that include places that people lived in before, during, and after contact with Europeans and other non-Native Americans. There are also historic sites with deep Tribal histories and were never home to Euro-American people, and still other sites that have significant, multilayered immigrant histories. Keep in mind that there is no single date that marks a divide between pre-contact and post-contact sites in North America or other colonial contexts. European colonial contact happened across the continent and the world over hundreds of years. Furthermore, many European goods were traded among Tribal and other Indigenous people before any European person ever showed up in person because of existing Indigenous trade networks. Since archaeologists examine material culture (such as trade goods), trade networks and interactions in the historic period are important to us.

In James Deetz’s classic book In Small Things Forgotten, he described historical archaeology as “the archaeology of the spread of European cultures throughout the world since the fifteenth century, and their impact on and interaction with the cultures of indigenous people” (1977, p. 5). Deetz revised his definition in a later edition, acknowledging that Indigenous people impacted European people as well, and that African people and immigrants other than Europeans have also played important roles in history. Deetz wrote that “both African American and Asian American archaeology are integral components of American historical archaeology, as is the history of the Native American peoples following the initial contact with European peoples” (Deetz 1996, p. 6).

Historical archaeology has become more concerned with the “archaeology of the modern world” (Orser and Fagan 1995) or, more broadly, “the development of the modern world” (Little 2007, p. 14). Archaeologist Robert Paynter wrote that in addition to studying culture, we should examine capitalism, class structure, and the various effects of the modern world on different communities (1988). Understanding the “modern world” means that we must examine the large global networks that were established by colonial settlement and how people and artifacts moved across those networks (see Hall 2000, p. 2), as well as how colonial settlement was driven by the economy of merchant capitalism (Hall 2000, p. 18).

Historical archaeology cannot be limited to a certain time period or defined by the appearance of a single dataset, like written records (Little 2007). This is because the contexts that have helped to form our definitions of what is and is not historical archaeology have changed with the evolution of the discipline, which is the subject of the next section. For better or worse, archaeology and historical archaeology have developed out of European fields of study that defined periods and groups in relation to European modes of thought. This means that early definitions for historical archaeology were led by those modes of thought but have not remained static. We have revised the definition of the field in North America and our expanded research questions to examine the various processes that have shaped the human experience, including social, cultural, economic, and political.

In This Chapter

In this chapter, we will explore some of the important themes and research questions investigated by historical archaeologists using examples from the United States and Canada. We will also briefly trace the theoretical and methodological developments in the field. Understanding the history of our discipline helps us understand why we do historical archaeology the way we do and what we can improve upon. We also reflect on how archaeological interpretations have political power of their own. We will examine how historical archaeologists use artifacts, documents, oral histories, and ethnohistory to help us interpret the past. We will show how historical archaeology can contribute to our understandings of race, class, gender, and ethnic identities by exploring these issues as they emerge through material culture. Lastly, we conclude with an overview of where historical archaeology is going and how that future builds on what we already know and do.

Written Records

Historical archaeology often includes written records as an additional line of evidence, along with the artifacts and features we study. So does historical archaeology include archaeology of the Mayan civilization, where a writing system was in use over 2,000 years ago, or the ancient Greeks and Romans, who had written works nearly 3,000 years ago? Most archaeologists who work in those regions today would probably say no, choosing to identify themselves as Mesoamerican or classical archaeologists. And in Europe, archaeologists who study the early periods of history consider themselves “post-medieval” archaeologists rather than historical archaeologists. These examples demonstrate how people working in different places understand the study of the development of the modern world through material culture.

Before historical archaeology was its own subfield within archaeology, people investigated the material remains of their recent past. Pilgrims from the Mayflower excavated burial mounds along the coast of present-day Massachusetts that included European goods alongside Indigenous belongings. The ensuing debate on the Mayflower about the meaning of these discoveries became one of the earliest recorded discussions of historical archaeology (Willison 1945, p. 151–152). Early projects such as those of the settlers from the Mayflower (Deetz 1977, p. 29) and British mapping surveys (Cotter 1993, p. 4) set the stage for the work of early 20th-century archaeologists who combined their interests with the developing field of anthropology in North America. Influenced by the anthropological work of Franz Boas, archaeologists began to include investigations of post-colonial contexts in their cultural historical research, attempting to quantify and interpret the effect of Spanish colonialism on an Indigenous village by examining pottery types found at the site of a mission church (Kidder 1958) and sometimes including consultations with contemporary Indigenous peoples as part of such questions (Montgomery et al. 1949). However, as this work was part of the burgeoning discipline of archaeology that followed the research questions and theoretical perspectives defined by a culture history approach, historical archaeology was not considered a separate field.

Following on the heels of the United States’ passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and multiple conferences discussing the formation of a specific subfield for historical archaeology, the Society for Historical Archaeology was founded in 1968. This international society set the agenda for historical archaeology in North America by identifying specific questions that were part of that research, such as: What kinds of questions can archaeology answer that history or anthropology alone cannot? What can be gained by combining archaeological methods with historical and anthropological ones?

Some people have wondered why anyone would bother to explore historical archaeology when we already have documents about the past. Once Europeans arrived, they began documenting what happened, whom they met, and what the landscape looked like, and sometimes they even recorded Indigenous languages. Indeed, these documents can help us know what those authors thought about their experiences in the world. Even J.C. “Pinky” Harrington, a founding father of our field, described historical archaeological work as an auxiliary science to history, pointing out that many early historical archaeological projects mainly provided supplementary data to interpret places that were important in American history (Harrington 1955). In his landmark article, Archaeology: Handmaiden to History, Harrington’s contemporary Ivor Noel Hume (1964: 215) described the typical historical archaeologist working in the first half of the 20th century as “a historian with a pen in one hand and a trowel in the other.” Later in the century, Deetz offered that historical archaeologists have the potential added benefit of anthropological training, which gives us a lens to look more broadly at the human experience by applying culture as a framework to interpret history.

Relying on the presence of written records as a way to define historical archaeology can be a problem because we can’t assume that everyone throughout history knew how to write, had access to writing materials, or had their accounts preserved. Many people were not written about, either, meaning that Indigenous people, poor people, enslaved Africans, those with low social status, and many women and children were left out of the historic record. However, people left out of the documentary record also had important roles in shaping history, and their histories are worth examining.

By the late 1970s, some historical archaeologists began to focus on how average people lived, exploring what those people left out of great historical works valued, and how they related to their social worlds. For example, in North America James Deetz’s examination of gravestone motifs in Puritan New England with his colleague Edwin Dethlefesen (1967) demonstrated a link between changing culture and religion and a preference for different grave carvings, which could be quantified and plotted on a graph. By studying gravestones, along with other material remains that were “forgotten” by traditional historical narratives, historical archaeologists could better understand what the past was actually like for most people, not just those with the privilege of a written record (Deetz 1977). By investigating the small things of the past, historical archaeologists realized that they could contribute important information about the lives of groups who were not recorded in textual sources.

Some historical archaeologists have examined the histories, sites, and artifacts associated with famous people or places, for example the Jamestown colony or George Washington’s home at Mount Vernon in the United States, which have been part of American history books since before archaeologists had data to add. Other historical archaeologists have sought to use historical archaeology to fill in the gaps in the historic record, to contradict the histories as written by victors, and find a balance between the histories of famous men and of common people. These practices lay the groundwork for what would become feminist archaeology, a theoretical approach designed to address gender and other intersections of identity Part of this shift also included focusing on the study of non-Anglo-descent sites in colonial areas, such as Kathleen Deagan’s research at Spanish colonial sites in Florida and the Caribbean (Deagan 1973), where she used historical archaeology to consider the lives of “people who otherwise reside at the margins of society” (1996, p. 154) because of their status or race.

This is something we struggle with, because of the power imbalances in history. The groups of people who were left out of the historic record may have had few material possessions and less political or social authority compared to the powerful people who show up in documents, and so they are sometimes elusive even in the archaeological record. Just as written records about the past are biased by their authors and audiences, materials from the past possess meanings assigned by their owners and users, and by archaeologists who interpret possible meanings today. Because we are researching sites where multiple different cultures have come into contact with one another, artifacts may carry multiple meanings to different people.

Go Back and Get It

While the written record in North America has a bias toward people of European descent, these are far from the only people who are interested in the past. Barbara Little suggests that what historical archaeologists learn from the past “has the potential to inspire us as well as chasten us” (Little 2007, p. 15). She means that we should not avoid difficult or controversial periods of history, for example, the devastating effects of settler colonialism on Indigenous people, or the legacy of slavery in North America. Many historical archaeologists have worked to address race and racism in the past, and examine how the past affects racial inequalities today.

Figure 1 – The Sankofa symbol, meaning “go back and get it,” was discovered on the lid of a coffin in the New York African Burial Ground (photo by Alexandra Martin)

Sankofa (Figure 1) is an Andikra (West African) symbol that translates as “go back and get it,” demonstrating an interest in understanding the past. Sankofa became especially meaningful to historical archaeologists during the 1990s excavations at the New York African Burial Ground in the area currently known as Lower Manhattan, which will be discussed in detail later in this chapter. The symbol was discovered on the lid of one of the historic wooden coffins at the site and became emblematic of how archaeological research could help recover information for the descendant community. Sankofa represents the importance of learning from the past and recovering what was lost so that we may move forward. The significance of learning from the past has also been highlighted by organizations like the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, whose mission for decades was “To help the future learn from the past” by preserving Williamsburg’s history for visitors—a goal to which historical archaeologists have contributed.

Case Studies in North American Historical Archaeology

Following the brief Norse occupation in Atlantic Canada, culture contact in North America paused for the greater part of 400 years. The 16th century marked the first formal European expeditions to explore the shores and waters of North America, and to extend the mercantile system of economic exploitation across the Atlantic by claiming and extracting raw material resources. These colonial expeditions included conquistadors murdering their way through Central America (e.g., Evans 2015), European fishers exploiting the North Atlantic cod populations (see Jackson et al. 2001, p. 629), the Basque extending their whaling tradition into Labrador Bay (Loewen and Delmas 2012), the development of a transatlantic fur trade (Reynolds 1906), the introduction of European diseases to the Native American populations (see Warrick 2003), and Sir Walter Raleigh’s abandonment of the colonists of Roanoke in his quest for fame and fortune in the Court of Queen Elizabeth I (Klingelhofer and Luccketti 2013). These events set the stage for later colonial expansions in North America that would have far-reaching consequences for European habitation on the continent and define how we understand this occupation archaeologically.

The 17th century marked the founding and establishment of many colonial enterprises by Europeans in North America. This meant constant influxes of new colonists and an expansion of economic strategies to aid in the establishment of larger and larger colonies. However, this was a European expansion with resistance. The experiences of the Spaniards in the Southeast and Southwest demonstrate the complex relationships Europeans had with Indigenous peoples that sometimes ended in defeat. English colonies like Jamestown appear to have eked out an existence because of indifference or minimal hostility from surrounding Indigenous groups. In other areas, such as Ferryland, Newfoundland, Europeans established their colonies in places the Indigenous people had not inhabited for a number of years prior to their arrival. Additionally, there were expansions to areas that seem to have had little if no habitation before the arrival of Europeans such as on the island of Bermuda (Fortenberry and Brown, 2011). We see expansion of the global market into North America and the establishment of the colonial economic industries that will play such a large role in the establishment of permanent European colonies on the continent.

In the 18th century, a major marker of American history was the American Revolution. However, archaeological research into the different colonies across North America reveals a more detailed account of a turbulent century. The Spanish continued to expand their missionaries into the area we now call California, even as missionaries faced resistance from Indigenous people in North America (see Liebmann 2010; Voss 2014) and conflict with Spanish officials in Europe (Espinosa 1988). In the British colonies, the colonists were growing restless while strengthening their economies, fortified by enslaved Africans (Battle-Baptiste 2011).

During the late 19th and throughout the 20th century the development of mass transportation systems profoundly changed life in North America (see Johnson 2012). Railway lines spread across the continent, followed by the development of cars and the associated roads and interstates that still move people and goods today. Increasing access to cheap and ever easier transportation upped the flow of goods and people. Transportation’s impact can be seen in historical archaeology in two ways. First, the types of material goods found at historical archaeological sites demonstrate how industrialization and ease of transportation caused an increase in the use of mass-produced goods and a decrease in locally made artifacts (Purser 1999). Historical archaeologists working in the 20th century can use catalogs, magazines, and newspaper ads to help identify artifacts because they were manufactured in one location, advertised widely, and shipped to consumers across the continent. Second is in the study of archaeological sites related to the development of transportation systems and the increased movement of people across the continent. These types of sites include boom towns, work camps, roadside attractions, debris from the transit of people, and even the road or railway lines themselves. Archaeologists study these types of sites to help us understand how transportation was changing the physical and social landscape of North America.

Canada

The earliest archaeological evidence for the European whalers in North America comes from Red Bay in Labrador, Canada (Loewen and Delmas 2012). This port was established by Basque mariners who came from Southeast France and Spain. The site has significant archaeological evidence for their presence in Canada as early as the 1530s, including submerged ships, ovens for processing whale oil, middens of food and other debris, a cemetery and living quarters (Loewen and Delmas 2012). Red Bay is on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization list of heritage sites for its importance to the nation of Canada and for its importance to Global Heritage.

Kanata

In the 16th century, the French crown sponsored exploratory voyages to North America. In the early 1530s, navigator Jacques Cartier was chosen to undertake the French effort. Cartier led three expeditions between 1535 and 1542. It was in Cartier’s chronicles that the term Canada (Kanata), an Iroquoian language word meaning “village,” was first used to refer to the area surrounding the St. Lawrence River (see Leacock 2008). Archaeologists’ interest in Cartier’s interactions with the First Nations people is an example of how historical and prehistoric archaeology overlap during the contact period (Tremblay 2016). Cartier recorded walled First Nation villages along the St. Lawrence River at Hochelaga (Montréal) and Stadacona (Québec City). Cartier recorded two separate lists of words used by First Nations people. Twentieth-century historical linguists analyzed these documents and determined the people of Stadacona and Hochelaga were speaking an Iroquoian language (Hoffman 1955, 1961; Lounsbury 1978), identifying these peoples as St. Lawrence Iroquoians. Archaeologists have paired an enigmatic hybrid Iroquoian/Algonquin archaeological signature with the identity of St. Lawrence Iroquoians. The true identity and modern descendant community affiliation of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians continues to be debated.

Cartier’s third voyage to Kanata in 1541 was somewhat different in scope, including a colonial component. The explorations were left to Cartier, while the establishment and management of what was to become the first permanent French colony was entrusted to Jean-François de La Rocque, Sieur de Roberval (Morison 1971, p. 434). The settlement was constructed on the rocky outcropping of Cap Rouge at the confluence of the St. Lawrence and Cap Rouge rivers (just upstream from the modern city of Québec). In 2005 the archaeological signature of the colonie perdue was rediscovered (Fiset and Samson 2009). The excavations recovered over 6,000 artifacts of 17th-century life, including luxury food items imported for the colonial nobility (Fiset and Samson 2009; Côté 2009). According to Hélène Côté (2009), spatial distribution of these goods indicate a re-creation of European hierarchical society within this tiny colony in North America. Artifacts recovered from the site also include Iroquoian pottery, indicating interactions with the local St. Lawrence Iroquoian population. Finally, artifacts including crucibles used to smelt unrefined gold were recovered, indicating that the colony was heavily invested in searching for precious metals (Côté 2009).

While on the coast of Newfoundland, Jacques Cartier made mention of encountering numerous fishing crews from Basque country, as well as his homeport of Saint Malo in Brittany and elsewhere in France (Biggar 1993, p. 160). This indicates the involvement of European cod fishing off the coast of Newfoundland and the Maritime provinces predating Cartier’s voyages into the interior of North America. Peter Pope (2008, p. 38) has described the immense nature of the historic salt cod industry, an industry that is less than a passing thought for most people in the 21st century. However, during the 16th century the northernmost peninsula of the island of Newfoundland, known as the Petit Nord, was an economic driver of Western Europe (Betts et al. 2014). North American salted codfish provided sustenance for Europeans for hundreds of years.

While the cod fishery was an immensely important aspect of economic history, the seasonal and temporary nature of cod fishermen’s habitation on the North American coasts has made the archaeological signature of cod fishing difficult to ascertain (Faulkner 1985; Pope 2008, p. 42). Still, numerous archaeological sites have been identified on the rocky Canadian coast that indicate cod were salted and dried on the shore in small camps known as “fishing stages” and processed in structures known as “fishing rooms.” Additionally, the presence of European goods at nearby First Nations sites indicates that the Beothuk and Innu Native Nations established informal, possibly contentious, trade and exchange with migratory French fishermen (Martijn 2003; Pope 2015).

French North America

The dawn of the 17th century in New France saw a concerted effort in colonization. Nineteenth- and 20th-century histories of Canada cite the triumvirate of fur, fish, and faith as the primary objectives of Canadian settlement. In his review of French colonial archaeology, Gregory Waselkov (1997, p. 12) cites a different triumvirate of the archaeology of New France: 1) the search for “great men,” 2) a fascination with military sites (e.g., forts), and 3) a strong interest in Native American sites that contain definitively French artifacts. Both of these rudimentary sets of classifications can effectively be employed to highlight the archaeological signature of 17th-century French colonial North America.

Explorer and diplomat Samuel de Champlain, “the Father of New France,” played an integral role in the establishment of the fur trade with the First Nations peoples of the Canadian interior. Samuel de Champlain and his exploits have been the focus of numerous documentary and archaeological research projects (e.g., Côté 1992; Côté 2000; Fischer 2008; Niellon 2008; Pendery 2012). The most recent large-scale investigation that is associated with Champlain is not related to the establishment of Québec City or his explorations westward.

In the early 2000s, archaeologist Steven Pendery led an international team to investigate the history and archaeology of the French settlement on Isle Saint-Croix, a tiny island in the center of the St. Croix River, the international boundary between the state of Maine and the province of New Brunswick (Pendery 2012). The settlement was built in 1604 under the command of Sieur de Mons and his young lieutenant Samuel de Champlain. The settlement lasted but one winter before being moved to the southern tip of Nova Scotia. The quick abandonment of the site, non-invasive use in the 19th century, and subsequent protection of the St. Croix Island International Historical Site during the 20th and 21st centuries by Parks Canada and the United States Parks Service have left the island a veritable treasure trove of information relating to 17th-century French settlement.

As the economic ventures of fur and fish pushed colonization in New France, proselytization efforts largely at the hands of the Jesuits followed quickly behind (Jaenen 1985). The Society of Jesus was founded in 1534 as a proselytizing religious order. Though the Jesuits were by no means the only religious order in New France, they left an indelible mark on the history of North America. The Black Robes, as they were often called by the Indigenous population, explored the interior of the continent, setting up missions to convert the Native population along the way (Axtell 1985; Bilodeau 2001; Blanchard 1982; Eccles 1990, 1998; Leavelle 2003; Moogk 2001; Richter 1985; Salisbury 1992; Steckley 1994). The most notable mission to be examined archaeologically was Sainte Marie Among the Huron (BeGx-1) in Midland, Ontario.

In 1639, the construction of a fortified mission complex began. This base, surrounded by a wooden palisade with stone bastions, housed a chapel, hospital, forge, mill, stables, and two distinct residence areas. One residence served as a hospice in which the missionaries who returned from the outpost missions could rest and recuperate, and the second was a residence for the donné, pious laymen whom the Jesuits contracted as laborers and artisans (Eccles 1990, p. 44; Jury and Jury 1965, p. 82–89). The entire complex ultimately became the epicenter of a Huron-Christian community (Jury and Jury 1965, p. 98).

Archaeological investigation at the site of the Sainte Marie Among the Huron Mission has been a process over a century and a half in the making. The first recorded excavations at the site were undertaken by the Jesuit priest Father Felix Martin in 1855 (Tummon and Gray 1995, p. 6). There were also two major excavations that took place in the middle of the 20th century. High-profile excavations led by Wilfred Jury from the University of Western Ontario (Tummon and Gray 1995, p. 3; Jury and Jury 1954) led to the subsequent reconstruction of the mission in 1964–1968 (Tummon and Gray 1995, p. 3). Before Jury’s excavation, though, there was an earlier excavation, from 1941 to 1943, with Kenneth E. Kidd as the principal investigator (Kidd 1949; Tummon and Gray 1995, p. 3).

New York

New Amsterdam

The 17th-century North American experience is often summed up by Native American interaction with the three major colonizing powers of Britain, France, and Spain. The role of the Dutch, however, is almost universally overlooked. The archaeology of this relatively small colony reveals another important facet of European settlement. In the 17th century, the Dutch came to the area known today as New York primarily in pursuit of fur trading (Hunter 2010). There, they encountered the Mohican and the Lenni Lenape, who were one of the largest groups among the more than 80,000 Algonquian speakers who occupied the New York area in the centuries prior to European contact (Pritchard 2007, p. 4). The Lenni Lenape resided in and around Manahata (Pritchard 2007, p. 6), which may have been the first documented Native place name in the Northeast, drawn on a map just “a little north of where Manhattan would be” (Goddard 2010, p. 279).

On the second of English navigator Henry Hudson’s voyages in search of the Northwest Passage, he was in the service of the Dutch East India Company. The Dutch declared the area from the Connecticut to the Delaware Rivers as Dutch territory and began settling along the Mahicanichtuck River, called the “North River” by the Dutch, and now named after Henry Hudson as the Hudson River (Grumet 2009). Holland granted fur traders a license to trade European goods with the Native people in the area they called New Netherland (Albany) (Reynolds 1906).

In 1621, Dutch merchants and investors established the Dutch West India Company, supported by the Dutch government, and the permanent settlement of New Amsterdam (New York City) was planned (Nash 1992). New Amsterdam’s success was built on the fur trade, and by 1628, the Dutch were sending 8,000 pelts a year to Europe (Nash 1992:89). However, with their focus on trade rather than on establishing self-sustaining settlements, and the decline of their fur trade by the mid-century, most of the Dutch merchants left. Finally, in 1664 the English took over the political administration of the former Dutch colony and declared the area as New York territory, ending the Dutch settlement (Allen 2011).

The first Dutch settlement in the region, Fort Nassau, was constructed in 1614. Historical documentation tells us that Fort Nassau had been built in a flood plain and was washed away in a flood the spring of 1617 (Huey 2016, p. 379). Any remains of Fort Nassau have long since been destroyed by both the course of the Hudson River and the cultural changes of the last 400 years of construction that gave birth to the modern capital of New York state (Huey 2005, p. 96). Fortunately, cultural resource management laws have helped to limit destruction, and most archaeological research relating to the colony has been undertaken as cultural resource management projects.

The oldest Dutch archaeological remains in the Hudson Valley relate to Fort Orange (Huey 1974, 1991, 2005). Fort Orange was built in 1624 on the west bank of the Hudson River, within the boundaries of what is now Albany, New York. In his exhaustive documentary and archaeological research on the colony of New Netherland, Paul Huey, a retired New York state archaeologist and New Netherland specialist, places the construction of Fort Orange within the initial phase of the colony’s infrastructure development (Huey 1991, p. 327). The survival of archaeological remains at Fort Orange is no doubt due to the fact that when the English captured Dutch Fort Orange, the English moved the fort to a new location, thus escaping intensive development at the time (Huey 1991).

Figure 2 – Map of New Amsterdam in 1660. Redraft of the Castillo Plan is in the public domain.

The second phase of frontier development of New Netherland was the illegal village of Beverwijck, near Fort Orange. By 1652 over one hundred illegal houses had been built on the north side of the fort. Infrastructural development in the Hudson Valley beginning as early as the 1790s and continuing to the present day have yielded a varied degree of archaeological data relating to the early Dutch settlement of Albany. Through Huey’s numerous works, he has created a virtual inventory of Dutch history and archaeology along the “North River” (Huey 1974, 1988, 1991, 2005, 2016). Fort Orange’s contemporary, Fort Amsterdam in Manhattan, was not well preserved. However, Fort Amsterdam did include laying out the nearby streets which eventually became New York City (Figure 2). Indeed, the modern course of Wall Street follows the Dutch wall created around the colony of New Amsterdam, and Broadway is located on the site of the Dutch street.

African Burial Ground

One of the economic pillars of colonialism in North America was the trading of enslaved and captive people from Africa, and historical archaeology has been integral to understanding their lives (Battle-Baptiste 2011). From excavations at major plantations (Leone et al. 2005), at the houses of presidents (Battle-Baptiste 2011), and in communities of freedmen (Hutchins-Keim 2018), archaeology has helped to understand the ways that those of the African Diaspora, and their descendants, lived and adapted to life in North America. Archaeologists specializing in African Diaspora research draw from the material culture record, as well as from theory looking at landscapes of power, homeplace, and Black feminism (Battle-Baptiste, 2011).

Widespread archaeological research led to the creation of the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery, a database allowing for geographical and temporal investigation of enslaved peoples and their descendants in North America. Another ongoing database project is the Michigan State University digital history project, “Enslaved: Peoples of the Historical Slave Trade.” Funded by a $1.47 million grant from the Mellon Foundation, this website will link data across multiple databases, allowing researchers to search for data “to identify enslaved individuals and their descendants” (Hawthorne et al. 2018).

Plantation archaeology in particular has been a large part of understanding history after the arrival of European colonists (Fairbanks 1984; Leone et al. 2005). While these excavations may also aim to understand the owners of such landscapes (White 2016), these investigations regularly focus on the enslaved populations at plantations. By looking at the remains of their living quarters and material items, archaeology helps us to understand the majority of people living and working in such landscapes (Leone et al. 2005). Sites such as Colonial Williamsburg have enduring projects that explore important living areas for enslaved people (Battle-Baptiste 2011) to understand the economy and the social systems of these communities (Leone et al. 2005). However, not every archaeological excavation investigating the African diaspora has been smooth.

While New York City had one of the larger and more thoroughly documented free Black populations in the 18th century (LaRoche and Blakey 1997), historic assessments before the construction of a new Federal building suggested that few burials would be found within the project area (LaRoche and Blakey 1997). Almost five city blocks that were used as a burial ground for thousands of enslaved Africans in the 17th and 18th centuries had been nearly forgotten and built over. Although the burial ground was visible on historical maps, it was thought that previous work in that area and infilling to expand the island had already destroyed the majority of the burials. Unfortunately after archaeologists uncovered 419 burials from the site, it was clear that this was not the case.

A group of descendant community members and activists shut down the excavations (McGowan and LaRoche 1996, p. 114). Eventual consultation with local African American communities and activists led to a fruitful study looking at how the health of Africans buried there compared to other populations living at the same time (LaRoche and Blakey 1997), what sort of objects were considered important grave goods, and the discovery of the Sankofa symbol on the lid of one historic coffin. This site was a key ethical case study in archaeology demonstrating how important descendant community voices are when excavating at historic sites (Blakey 2008). Today the African Burial Ground is a National Historic Landmark where visitors can learn more about New York’s history and the preservation of this significant place.

Virginia

Roanoke

In the 16th century, many Indigenous people of the North American eastern coastline were living in towns, supported by seasonal resources and farming the fertile riverine land (Horning 2009, p. 131). Although European explorers had been visiting the East Coast since Giovanni da Verrazzano’s visit on behalf of France in 1524, and the French had established fortified trading posts by 1540 (Reynolds 1906), the earliest planned colony was not until decades later. The people on the coast of what is known today as North Carolina first met English colonists in 1584, when Sir Walter Raleigh planned to start a settlement. The following military expeditions “inaugurated a history of hostilities between English and Natives in America” (Klingelhofer and Luccketti 2013, p. 181). Archaeological evidence of exchange patterns among English colonists at Roanoke, as well as at the 16th-century Spanish mission site at Ajacan and the later English settlement at Jamestown, suggest that Europeans repeatedly violated the rules of gift exchange, which increased hostilities (Mallios 2006). By 1590, the entire group of English settlers had disappeared, leaving the word “Croatoan” carved in a fort post (Klingelhofer and Luccketti 2013). Croatoan was the name of an Indigenous town to the south, but search parties never found evidence of survivors, and Roanoke became known as the “Lost Colony.” However, dendrochronological analysis has shown that extreme drought likely affected the settlers’ access to food (Gallivan 2011), and North Carolina’s state-recognized Tribal groups “know that the colonists were absorbed into native society by their ancestors” (Horning 2009, p. 131).

J.C. “Pinky” Harrington undertook the first professional archaeological work at the Fort Raleigh National Historic Site in the mid-1900s, examining an earthwork feature and dozens of 16th-century European artifacts, including musket balls, German counter disks, and earthenware olive jars (Klingelhofer and Luccketti 2013). Archaeological work in the 1990s confirmed that the remains of a nearby structure was a workshop where Elizabethan scientists were testing metal ores in 1585 (Klingelhofer and Luccketti 2013). However, archaeologists did not recover domestic artifacts in these excavations that would indicate the location of the Roanoke settlers’ homes. In 2008, the First Colony Foundation archaeologists were joined by the crew of Time Team America, a television program featuring a group of diverse archaeologists who bring various skill sets, technological advancements, and specialized equipment to assist with archaeological projects in the United States (Dixon 2009). At Fort Raleigh, Time Team and staff archaeologists exposed a large area, revealing undisturbed 16th-century artifacts, including Algonquian pottery, French ceramics, and a necklace made of copper lozenges (Straube 2013 p. 196). These artifacts are the material remains left behind by the colonists when they abandoned England’s first attempt at a settlement.

In the 17th century, after the failure at Roanoke, British colonists established and settled in colonies on the eastern coast and the “English Shore” on the east coast of Newfoundland. Here they continued to come into contact with different groups of Indigenous people, resulting in archaeological and documentary evidence of cross-cultural interactions. Often the stories of these 17th-century colonies, like the story of the Pilgrims’ first Thanksgiving at Plymouth colony, serve as “part of a larger national origin myth for Americans” (Deetz and Deetz 2000, p. 9), but as stories, may belie the complexity of the interactions and effects of colonization on both the English and Indigenous peoples. Archaeological excavations can provide a unique lens into these pasts.

Jamestown

Figure 3 – The historic site of Jamestown is now a National Park. Photo by Jennifer Zovar.

Jamestown is known as the first permanent English colony in North America (Figure 3). Three English ships sent by King James arrived on the coast of what is today known as Virginia in May of 1607. In 1607, this land was part of the country of Tsenacommacah, which was under the rulership of Wahunsenacawh, a paramount chief whose seat of power has been excavated at Werowocomoco (see Gallivan 2018). Wahunsenacawh, also known as Chief Powhatan and as the father of Pocahontas, led an estimated 13,000 to 22,000 Algonquian-speaking people (Horning 2009). The Powhatan peoples had used the swamplands in which the English landed, indicated by the recovery of 16th-century native belongings, like a nearly complete Townsend cooking pot excavated at Jamestown, but by the early 17th century, they were not residing on the island (Horning 2009, 131). The English stayed and erected James Fort, a triangular palisade, enforced at the three corners with cannons (Noël Hume 1979, 27). Jamestown served as the capital of Virginia until 1699, when the government moved inland to Williamsburg.

The first systemic archaeology at Jamestown was through the National Park Service in the 1930s, directed by J.C. “Pinky” Harrington (Noël Hume 1979, p. 31). They were looking for the original fort, which was found in 1994 under the direction of Bill Kelso and the Jamestown Rediscovery project. Significant archaeological work at Jamestown has focused on the so-called Starving Time, a period between 1609 and 1610 when severe drought, poor water quality, and intercultural hostility resulted in famine and extreme mortality (Blanton 2000). In 2013, Kelso and other Jamestown archaeologists reported the analysis of the skeletal remains of a teenage girl who had been butchered, indicating that the starving colonists had resorted to cannibalism during the Starving Time (Horn et al. 2013). Recently, the Jamestown Rediscovery project has focused on looking for material evidence related to the first enslaved Africans in a British colony as part of the 2019 “American Evolution” commemoration. The first Africans sold into slavery in British America landed in Jamestown via a Dutch ship in 1619 (Noël Hume 1979:43). Angela, an enslaved African listed on the 1625 census, lived with the family of Captain William Pierce on Jamestown Island, and archaeologists hope to “define the physical and cultural landscape in which Angela lived and worked” (Hall and Givens 2018).

Figure 4 – Tourists and actors visit the Governor’s Palace at Colonial Williamsburg (photo by Jennifer Zovar).

In the 18th century British colonies on the East Coast, in the Virginia Colony, moved their capital from Jamestown to Williamsburg, where it took center stage in Virginia’s political events leading up to the American Revolution. Colonial Williamsburg, the largest living history museum in the world (Figure 4), reconstructed the colonial period city, based in large part on archaeological research conducted by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation archaeologists. Marley Brown III, who served as the director of archaeology for 26 years in the late 20th and early 21st century, suggests that Williamsburg is where the modern excavation techniques of historical archaeology got their start (Brown and Chappell 2004). After British archaeologist Ivor Noël Hume arrived in the 1950s and professional excavations became standard, Noël Hume contended that no reconstruction or restoration of a historic feature could be considered complete without extensive archaeological work (Brown and Chappell 1997, p. 72). In 1964, a Department of Archaeology was established, which has provided a foundation for the archaeological techniques of Chesapeake sites and beyond. Furthermore, a close relationship between Colonial Williamsburg and the neighboring College of William and Mary provided opportunities for a generation of historical archaeology scholars, including students who became leaders in the archaeology of the African Diaspora (e.g., see Battle-Baptiste 2015; Franklin 2015).

Florida

Spanish colonizers made several entradas, or expeditions, into the Southeast in the 16th century. Through archaeological excavations and historical records, archaeologists have traced the route of the leader of one of the biggest entradas, Hernando de Soto (Clayton et al. 1995; Vega 1993). In the 16th century the Spanish took control of the region they called La Florida, which at times extended all the way into South Carolina and all the way over to Louisiana. The year 1565, specifically, marks the beginning of what is known as the First Spanish Period (Table 1), which continued until 1763 (Reitz 1993: 376). During this period, various religious orders of the Catholic Church began their attempts to convert the native groups in the Southeast to Christianity (Hann 1990; Thomas 1989; Wade 2008). The missionization process, the establishing of missions and conversion of native populations by the Franciscans, was one of the Spanish colonial strategies, combining government and the Church to colonize the Southeast with as little use of the military as possible (Milanich 2000: 14; 2006: 4). We see the remains of the conversion efforts in the excavations of some of the missions that dot the landscape.

Table 1 – Historical Periods for Florida

Period	Dates	Notes
First Spanish Period	1565–1763
British Period	1763–1784
Second Spanish Period	1784–1821
American Period	1821–present	Florida was a U.S. territory from 1821 until it became a state in 1845. (Florida Department of State – A Brief History)

The 17th century marks the height of Spanish colonial occupation of the Southeast. The Franciscans established missions across the landscape in many of the villages of the Guale, Timucua, and Apalachee. There is some evidence, based on historical records, that the Timucua and the Apalachee influenced each other in accepting the missionization process due to competition between the two groups (McEwan 2000, p.65). One of the best examples of a Spanish mission was San Luis de Talimali, the head village for the Apalachee (McEwan 2000, p. 67). Today, visitors can tour Mission San Luis and see reconstructions of the old fort, an Apalachee council house, and a church, among other things. Meanwhile, the Spanish also set up a few forts in St. Augustine, San Marcos de Apalache, Fort Barrancas, and Pensacola, the remains of which can still be seen today (Deagan 1983, p. 1991).

Many changes occurred during the 18th century in the Spanish Southeast of North America. In 1704, raids led by British-backed Creek soldiers burned many of the Spanish missions, including the Apalachee capital of San Luis. In response to this, Guale and Timucua villages moved closer to St. Augustine. While some Apalachee were enslaved by the Creek, some chose to join the Creek because they saw the Spanish as unable to protect them anymore, and some followed the Spanish westward to Pensacola (Hann 1988; Saunders 2000; Thomas 1993). One of the missions that was established after this move was Mission San Joseph de Escambe. Field schools from the University of West Florida worked for several summers on this site north of Pensacola (Pensacola Colonial Frontiers blog). The contracted Spanish and Native territory remained the status quo until 1763, when the Spanish surrendered La Florida to the British following the French and Indian War, effectively ending the First Spanish Period and beginning the British Period (Table 1). However, the British returned the lands to the Spanish following the American Revolution in 1783, beginning the Second Spanish Period. It would remain under the Spanish domain until 1820, when the land was ceded to the United States.

Southwest

In the 16th century, Spanish colonists followed a similar pattern in the American Southwest and Northwest Mexico. Several entradas by men such as Coronado occurred prior to permanent colonization by Juan de Oñate in 1598 (Elliott 2012; Knaut 1995; Wilcox 2009). We know of these early entradas into what is now New Mexico and Arizona mostly through historical accounts of the Spaniards themselves as well as through oral histories of the many Puebloan groups that the Spanish encountered along the way (Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca, Covey, and Pilkington 1983). The combination of church and state was also a Spanish colonization strategy in the Southwest, with priests accompanying the first colonists as well as more priests coming thereafter (Benavides and Morrow 2012; Wilcox 2009). In fact, according to historical documents from Franciscan priests, after the failure to find mineral wealth, it was the missionization efforts that led to the Crown maintaining Nuevo Mexico as a territory in the 17th century (Weber 1999, p. 3; Wilcox 2009, p. 134). Archaeology has helped us understand not only what Spanish colonialism was like on the ground versus the rules and regulations the Spanish government put forth, but it has also allowed us to attain a better understanding of the effects of Spanish colonialism on the native populations living in these regions. It is important to note that the Spanish did not merely occupy the landscape and force the native groups to bend to their will. They encountered thriving communities that, though at times forced to acquiesce to the Spanish, still found ways to navigate their social and political worlds to create spaces for themselves. This process was not a passive acceptance of Christianity or Spanish rule, but rather an active engagement.

Franciscan Missions and Pueblo Revolt

In the 17th century Puebloan groups in the Southwest were forced to accept Spanish authority due to Spanish squelching of any native attempts to prevent them from taking over upon the arrival of Oñate in 1598 (Knaut 1995; Wilcox 2009). Over the next 20 to 30 years, the Franciscan priests built missions in many of the Pueblos, including Pecos, Gran Quivira, and Hawikuh (Hayes et al. 1981; Montgomery 2002; Smith et al. 1966). However, the Puebloans did not passively accept the Spanish presence. There is evidence of Native resistance in artifacts such as ceramics, on which symbols used by Native groups were thought by the Spanish to mean acceptance of Christianity when in reality they held different meanings for the Puebloans (Mobley-Tanaka 2002; Liebmann and Preucel 2007). In 1680, many pueblos, led by Po’pay and other spiritual leaders, revolted and kicked the Spanish out for 12 years (for more in-depth information on the Pueblo revolt, see: Dongoske and Dongoske 2002; Knaut 1995; Liebmann 2010, 2012; Liebmann and Preucel 2007; Preucel 2002; Roberts 2004; Weber 1999; Wilcox 2009).

Diego de Vargas successfully retook New Mexico in what is known as the Reconquista in 1692, though it would not be until 1696 that Puebloans stopped rebelling against Vargas (Liebmann 2010; Preucel 2002; Roberts 2004; Weber 1999). Following the Pueblo Revolt and then the Reconquista, the Catholic priests and the Spanish government officials were more relaxed in their stance of trying to force the Puebloan groups to live strictly by Spanish and Catholic policies (Knaut 1995; Liebmann and Preucel 2007; Montgomery 2002; Weber 1999). Churches were rebuilt and missions re-established (Hayes 1981). From the Spanish perspective, despite initial appearances of a good relationship, Spanish civil authorities and the Franciscans were soon clashing over who had greater authority (Espinosa 1988; Hackett 1937). Material culture, particularly Puebloan ceramics, do change in the post-Revolt period as some designs are abandoned and others see new use (Liebmann and Preucel 2007; Mobley-Tanaka 2002).

Figure 5 – Mission San Juan Capistrano is one example of a California mission, founded in 1776 (Mission San Juan Capistrano by Ken Lund is licensed as CC BY-SA 2.0)

The 18th century marks the development of the mission system in what is now California (Figure 5). The California missions were established relatively late, around the mid-1700s, and continued until the early decades of the 1800s (Green 2001). As with previous colonization efforts, the Spanish began with smaller expeditions into California before permanent settlement began in response to increased activity of other colonial powers on the Pacific Coast (Voss 2014). Although reducción, or combining native villages regardless of village affiliation, was practiced to a certain extent in both the Southeast and the Southwest, it was a large part of Spanish policy in California. Native Americans from different groups were forced to live together in the Spanish missions, as seen by excavations at some of these missions (Voss 2014), though there was often resistance from these same groups, which manifested in individuals running away from the missions who were then discussed in Franciscan documents.

The Future of Historical Archaeology

In this chapter, we have explored how the development of the discipline of historical archaeology influenced what questions were asked and what theory we could use to explain our findings. Expanding from those theories and questions, we have given a brief example of what we know happened during this period on the continent archaeologically, exploring how European goods, such as copper sheets, were integrated into the economy of established cultures on the continent. We’ve examined how European presence changed in different regions, touched on the lives of the enslaved people of Africa who were brought to the continent without their consent, and explored histories of the nation states that now call North America home.

It is clear from archaeological evidence and Tribal oral histories that North America was full of life and culture before Europeans arrived. With evidence such as Viking habitation in Canada between 990 AD and 1030 AD (Davis et al. 1988) and the Birnirk peoples, who lived on both sides of the Bering Sea, the newness of the continent was a construct by and for the Europeans of the 15th century and beyond to allow continued colonization and extraction of resources from the continent for their benefit. However, that is not the whole story of human habitation of the continent. Historical archaeology helps to critique colonial and European-centric historical narratives by looking at the stories of people who are left out of those narratives. Archaeology such as this aids in dispelling myths of an Anglo- or Eurocentric development of the nation states in North America by demonstrating how a plethora of different cultures helped to create the place that is now known as North America. This chapter serves as an introduction to some of the themes, questions, peoples, and sites that historical archaeology has helped us understand as part of the past of North America.

Historical archaeology has helped us to explore much of the human past of North America, including landscape change, economies, migrations, and even the relationships between people within a household. Historical archaeology is a dynamic discipline that is leveraging new technologies as well as returning to old collections and sites, which give us details about the past. Particularly as technology continues to decrease in price and historic sources are becoming digitized and accessible around the world, technology is becoming an extremely important point to leverage for understanding the potential of historic archaeology. Like the rest of archaeology, historical archaeology is changing to include diverse narratives as well as leverage new ways to demonstrate our importance to the public.

Understanding the research themes and goals of historical archaeology in North America allows us to understand what questions are explored in historical archaeology, identify relevant stakeholders and descendants of the material under investigation, and utilize appropriate theory and resources to interpret the past. It gives us a better understanding of the past so that we may use that knowledge to understand modern problems, making the field vibrant and relevant to everyone. Each century since the colonization of North America by Europeans has left a material imprint on the landscape and archaeologists have used this to better understand landscape change, the formation of national identities, and the lives of the people that have created modern society. From the 16th century to yesterday, material culture continues to be an important part of human life in North America, helps to tell us about each other, and may help us better prepare for the future.

Discussion Questions

1. Define historical archaeology. What role can archaeology play in investigations of time periods that also have written history? Why is archaeology important here?
2. The chapter begins with a discussion of the Sankofa symbol. Why is this important and what does it say about the role of historical archaeology?
3. This chapter describes a number of examples of historical archaeological research across North America. Compare and contrast important themes in two different regions.
4. What directions do you see historical archaeology taking in the future? What are some avenues that you would like to explore?

About the Authors

Alexandra Martin is the archaeologist at Strawbery Banke Museum in Portsmouth, NH. She conducts research at the museum’s archaeological sites and is responsible for maintaining the museum’s collection of over one million archaeological artifacts. Alix is also a faculty fellow in the Anthropology department and coordinator of the Native American and Indigenous Studies minor program at the University of New Hampshire. As a board member of the New Hampshire Archeological Society, she serves as the editor of the society’s publication, The New Hampshire Archeologist. Alix holds degrees in Anthropology from Mount Holyoke College and The College of William & Mary.

Paulina F. Przystupa, PhD is a Filipine-Polish-Canadian-American Postdoctoral Researcher in Archaeological Data Literacy at the Alexandria Archive Institute / Open Context. Trained as a historical landscape archaeologist exploring socialization and assimilation at children’s institutions, Paulina works in pedagogy-focused digital archaeology contexts to understand the dynamic ways people learn and teach archaeology and the ways that education shapes national and community identities.

Valerie Bondura is an educator and archaeological anthropologist with multiple commitments in higher education. She is passionate about feminist and decolonial approaches to anthropology and to education, and understands teaching and learning to be core practices for community-building and social justice. Valerie holds a Ph.D. in Anthropology (Archaeology) from Columbia University. During her graduate research, she worked with communities, archives, and archaeological data in the Northern Rio Grande to re-write histories of persistence and change across historic and ongoing colonial periods. Valerie has taught within her discipline and in university writing programs since 2014 and also serves as Director of Teaching and Learning at the Jewish Theological Seminary.

Katherine Brewer is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico. Her research currently focuses on Indigenous responses to Spanish colonization in what is now the Southwest United States.

Andrew R. Beaupré is the Curator of Archaeological Collections at Maine State Museum. He is also a Research Associate at the Arkansas Archeological Survey and the Vice President of the Center for French Colonial Studies/Centre pour l’etude du pays des Illinois. Dr. Beaupré has made the French Colonial world the focus of his historical and archaeological research. The grandson of French-Canadian immigrants to the New England mills, Beaupré has excavated on both sides of the modern US/Canadian border and published on French Jesuit material culture, historical archaeology of military instillations, and contact period border politics as well as community archaeology landscape archaeology, and heritage studies. He holds degrees in history and anthropology from University of Vermont (BA), Western Michigan University (MA) and the College of William and Mary (Ph.D.)

References

Allen, D. Y. (2011). “Property and boundary mapping in New York, The Development of New York Land Policies before 1720.” The mapping of New York State: A study in the history of cartography, <http://digital.library.stonybrook.ed...tatemaps/id/46>

Axtell, J. (1985) The invasion within: The contest of cultures in colonial North America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Battle-Baptiste, W. (2011). Black feminist archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Battle-Baptiste, W. (2015). “In the most unlikely of places: Marley R. Brown III, the College of William & Mary, and foundational moments in African Diaspora archaeology.” Paper presented in Symposium: Making Waves at Society for Historical Archaeology Annual Meeting, Friday, January 9, 2015.

Benavides, A. & Morrow, B. H. (translator). (2012). A harvest of reluctant souls: Fray Alonso de Benavides’s History of New Mexico, 1630. University of New Mexico Press.

Betts, M., Noël, S., Tourigny, E., Burns, M., Pope, P. & Cumbaa, S. (2014). Zooarchaeology of the historic cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Journal of the North Atlantic, 9, 1–21.

Bilodeau, C. J. (2014). The paradox of Sagadohoc: The Popham Colony, 1607–1608. Early American Studies, 12(1), 1–35.

Biggar, H. P. (1993). The voyages of Jacques Cartier. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Blakey, M. L. (2008). “An ethical epistemology of publicly engaged biocultural research.” In Evaluating multiple narratives (pp. 17–28). Springer, New York.

Blanchard, D. (1982). …To the other side of the sky: Catholicism at Kahnawake, 1667–1700. Anthropologica 24, 77–102.

Blanton, D. B. (2000). Drought as a factor in the Jamestown Colony, 1607–1612. Historical Archaeology, 34(4), 74–81.

Brown III, M. R. & Chappell, E. (1997). Archaeology and garden restoration at Colonial Williamsburg.” Journal of Garden History 14, 70-77.

Brown III, M. R. & Chappell, E. (2004). Colonial Williamsburg: Archaeological authenticity and changing philosophies. In The reconstructed past. Reconstructions in the public interpretation of archaeology and history, edited by John H. Jameson, Jr., pp. 47- Lanham, MD.

Clayton, L. A., Bosted, D. A., Brain, J. P., Crowley, F. G., Hann, J. H., Hoffman, P., Hudson, C., James Jr., V., Knight, E. K., & Lyon, E. (1995). De Soto Chronicles: The expedition of Hernando De Soto to North America in 1539–1543. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press

Côté, R. (2000). Place-Royale: quatre siècles d’histoire, Musée de la civilisation, Montréal,QC.

Côté, R. (1992). Portraits du Site et de l’habitat de Place-Royale Sous le Régime Français: Synthèse, X Les Publications du Québec, Québec, QC.

Cotter, J. L. (1993). Historical archaeology before 1967. Historical Archaeology, 27(1), 4-9.

Davis, A.M., McAndrews, J. H., & Wallace, B. L. (1988). Paleoenvironment and the archaeological record at the L’Anse aux Meadows Site, Newfoundland. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 3(1), 53–64.

Deagan, K. (1973). Mestizaje in colonial St. Augustine.” Ethnohistory, 55-65.

Deagan, K. (1983). The archaeological manifestations of Spanish St. Augustine. In Spanish St. Augustine: The archaeology of a colonial Creole community, Kathleen Deagan, editor, pp. 187-227. Academic Press, New York, NY.

Deagan, K. (1991). Historical archaeology’s contributions to our understanding of early America. Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, pp. 97-112.

Deagan, K. (1996). Colonial transformation: Euro-American cultural genesis in the early Spanish-American colonies. Journal of Anthropological Research, 52(2), 135-160.

Deetz, J. (1977). In small things forgotten: The archaeology of everyday life in early America. New York: Anchor Books.

Deetz, J. (1996). In small things forgotten: The archaeology of everyday life in early America. Expanded and revised edition. New York: Anchor Books.

Deetz, J. & Dethlefson, E. S. (1967). Death’s head, cherub, urn and willow.” Natural History, 76(3), 29-37.

Deetz, J. & Deetz, P. S. (2000). The times of their lives: life, love, and death in Plymouth Colony. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

Dixon, G. (Producer and Director) (2009). Time team America: Fort Raleigh, North Carolina [Television Series]. Oregon Public Broadcasting and Videotext Communications Limited. <<https://www.thirteen.org/programs/time-team-america/time-team-america-fort-raleigh-north-carolina/>>

Dongoske, K. E. & Dongoske, C. K. (2002). History in stone: Evaluating Spanish conversion efforts.” Archaeologies of the Pueblo Revolt: Identity, meaning, and renewal in the Pueblo World, p. 114.

Eccles, W. J. (1990). France in America. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Eccles, W. J. (1998). The French in North America, 1500-1783. 2nd ed. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press.

Espinosa, J. Manuel, ed. (1988). The Pueblo Indian revolt of 1696 and the Franciscan Missions in New Mexico: Letters of the missionaries and related documents. University of Oklahoma Press.

Evans, S. T. (2015). Toltec invaders and Spanish conquistadors: Culture contact in the postclassic Teotihuacán valley, Mexico. In Studies in culture contact: interaction, culture change, and archaeology (pp. 335-357). Southern Illinois University.

Fairbanks, C. H. (1984). The plantation archaeology of the Southeastern coast. Historical Archaeology, 18(1), 1-14.

Faulkner, A. (1985). Archaeology of the cod fishery: Damiriscove Island. Historical Archaeology, 19(2), 57-86.

Fischer, D. H. (2008). Champlain’s dream. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks.

Fiset, R. & Samson, G. (2009). Charlesbourg-Royal and France-Roy (1541–43): France’s first colonization attempt in the Americas, Post-Medieval Archaeology, 43:1, 48-70.

Fortenberry, B. & Brown III, M. R. (2011). Bermuda’s archaeology in context. Post-Medieval Archaeology, 45(1), 1-6.

Franklin, M. (2015). “Marley Brown, the Golden Horseshoe, and African Diaspora Archaeology.” Paper presented in Symposium: Making Waves at Society for Historical Archaeology Annual Meeting, Friday, January 9, 2015.

Gallivan, M. (2011) The archaeology of Native societies in the Chesapeake: New investigations and interpretations.” Journal of Archaeological Research, 19, 281-325.

Gallivan, M. (2018). The Powhatan landscape: An archaeological history of the Algonquian Chesapeake. Gainesville, FL: The University Press of Florida.

Goddard, I. (2010). The origin and meaning of the name Manhattan.” New York History, Fall 2010, 277-293.

Gonzales, S. L. (2016). Indigenous values and methods in archaeological practice: Low-impact archaeology through the Kashaya Pomo Interpretive Trail Project. American Antiquity, 81(3), 533-549.

Green, T. M. (2001). Archaeological evidence for post-contact Native religion: The Chumash Land of the Dead.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 319-328.

Grumet, R. S. (2009). The Munsee Indians: A history. Norman OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Hackett, C. W. (editor) (1937). Historical documents relating to New Mexico, Nueva Vizcaya, and approaches thereto, to 1773. Vol. 3. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Washington, D.C.

Hall, M. (2000). Archaeology and the modern world: Colonial transcripts in South Africa and Chesapeake. Routledge.

Hall, K. & Givens, D. (2018). Unearthing American evolution in Jamestown. Opinions, Washington Times, June 20, 2018. <<https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/20/unearthing-american-evolution-in-jamestown/>>

Hann, J. H. (1988). Apalachee: the land between the rivers. University Press of Florida.

Hann, J. H. (1990). Summary guide to Spanish Florida missions and visitas with churches in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.” The Americas, 46(4), 417-513.

Hantman, J. L. and Dunham, G. (1993) The enlightened archaeologist: Recent excavations in Virginia offer new insight into Jefferson’s study of an Indian mound,” Archaeology, 46(3): 46.

Harrington, J. C. (1955). Archeology as an auxiliary science to American history. American Anthropologist, 57(6), 1121-1130.

Hawthorne, W., Henion, A., Rehberger, D., Watrall, E., & Jensen, R. (2018). “MSU uses $1.5M Mellon Foundation Grant to build massive slave trade database.” Press Release published Jan. 9 2018. <<https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2018/m...rade-database/>>

Hayes, A. C., Young, J. N., & Warren, A. H. (1981). Excavation of Mound 7, Gran Quivira National Monument, New Mexico. No. 16. National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior

Hoffman, B. G. (1955). Souriquois, Etchemin and Kwedech: A lost chapter in American ethnography. Ethnohistory, 2(1), 65-85.

Hoffman, B. G. (1961). Cabot to Cartier: Sources for a historical ethnography of Northeastern North America, 1497-1550. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Horn, J., Kelso, W., Owsley, D., & Straube, B. (2013) Jane: Starvation, cannibalism, and endurance at Jamestown. Williamsburg: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and Preservation Virginia.

Horning, A. J. (2009). Past, present and future: Exploring and restoring native perspectives on Roanoke and Chesapeake. European visions: American voices, British Museum Publication 172: 131-142.

Huey, P. R. (1974) Reworked pipe stems: a 17th century phenomenon from the site of Fort Orange, Albany, New York. Historical Archaeology 8(1), 104-111.

Huey, P. R. (1988). “Aspects of continuity and change in colonial Dutch material culture at Fort Orange, 1624-1664.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Huey, P. R. (1991). The Dutch at Fort Orange. Historical archaeology in global perspective, pp.21-67. Smithsonian Institution Press.

Huey, P. R. (2005). The archaeology of 17th-Century New Netherland since 1985: An update.” Northeast Historical Archaeology 34(1), 95-118.

Huey, P. R. (2016). The archaeology of New Netherland: Why It Matters. New York History 96(3), 374-393.

Hunter, D. (2010). Half Moon: Henry Hudson and the voyage that redrew the map of the New World. New York NY: Bloomsbury Press.

Jackson, J. B. C., Kirby, M. X., Berger, W. H., Bjorndal, K. A, Botsford, L. W., Bourque, B. J., Bradbury, R. H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J. A., Hughes, T. P., Kidwell, S., Lange, C. B., Lenihan, H. S., Pandolfi, J. M., Peterson, C. H., Steneck, R. S., Tegner, M. J., & Warner, R. R. (2001). Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems.” Science, 293, 620-638. http://copa.acguanacaste.ac.cr:8080/...pdf?sequence=1

Jaenen, C. J. (1985). The role of the church in New France (The Canadian Historical Society Historical Booklet No. 40). Ottowa, ON, Canada.

Johnson, E. S. (2012). Roads, rails, and trails: Transportation-related archaeology in Massachusetts. Publication of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. Retrieved from https://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcarch/archresources/Roads_Rails_Trails_REPORT.pdf

Jones, E. L. (2015). The promise and peril of older collections: meta-analyses in the American Southwest. Open Quaternary, 1(6), 1-13. Plaza Vieja de Belen, New Mexico. Draft Report

Jury, W. & Jury, E. M. (1954). Sainte Marie among the Huron. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.

Kidder, A. V. (1958). Pecos, New Mexico: Archaeological notes. Andover, MA: Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology at Phillips Academy.

Klingelhofer, E. & Luccketti, N. (2013). Elizabethan activities at Roanake. In Exploring Atlantic transitions: Archaeologies of transience and permanence in New Found Lands, edited by Peter Edward Pope, and Shannon Lewis-Simpson, pp. 181-189. Boydell & Brewer Ltd.

Knaut, A. L. (1995). The Pueblo Revolt of 1680: Conquest and resistance in seventeenth-century New Mexico. Oxford University Press.

LaRoche, C. J. & Blakey, M. L. (1997). Seizing intellectual power: The dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground.” Historical Archaeology, 31(3), 84-106.

Leacock, S. (2008). The Marier of St. Malo: A chronicle of the voyages of Jacques Cartier. Dodo Press.

Leone, M. P., LaRoche, C. J., & Babiarz, J. J. (2005) The archaeology of Black Americans in recent times. Annual Review of Anthropology 34(2005), 575-598.

Liebmann, M. (2010). The Battle of Astialakwa: Conflict archaeology of the Spanish Reconquest in Northern New Mexico. The SAA Archaeological Record 10(4), 40-42.

Liebmann, M. (2012). The rest is history: Devaluing the recent past in the archaeology of the Pueblo Southwest.” In Decolonizing Indigenous histories: Exploring prehistoric/colonial transitions in archaeology, edited by Siobhan M. Hart, Maxine Oland, and Liam Frink, pp. 19-44. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Liebmann, M., & Preucel, R. (2007). The archaeology of the Pueblo Revolt and the formation of the modern Pueblo world. Kiva: The Journal of Southwestern Anthropology and History 73(2):195-217.

Little, B. J. (2007). Historical archaeology: why the past matters. New York: Routledge.

Loewen, B. & Delmas, V. (2012). The Basques in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and adjacent Shores. Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 36, 213-266.

Lounsbury, F. G. (1978). Iroquoian languages. In Handbook of North American Indians, Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 334-343. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Mallios, S. W. (2006). The deadly politics of giving: Exchange and violence at Ajacan, Roanoke, and Jamestown. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Martijn, C. A. (2003). Early Mikmaq presence in Southern Newfoundland: An ethnohistorical perspective, c. 1500-1763.” Newfoundland Studies, 19(1), 44-102.

McEwan, B. G. (2000). The Apalachee Indians of Northwest Florida. In Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical archaeology and ethnohistory, Bonnie G. McEwan, editor, pp. 57-84. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

McGowan, G. S., & LaRoche, C. J. (1996). The ethical dilemma facing conservation: care and treatment of human skeletal remains and mortuary objects. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 35(2), 109-121.

Milanich, J. T. (2000). The Timucua Indians of Northern Florida and Southern Georgia. In Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Bonnie G. McEwan, editor, pp. 1- 25. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Milanich, J. T. (2006). Laboring in the fields of the Lord: Spanish missions and Southeastern Indians. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Mobley-Tanaka, J. L. (2002). Crossed Meanings. In Archaeologies of the Pueblo Revolt: Identity, meaning, and renewal in the Pueblo world, p. 77.

Moogk, P. N. (2001). Building house in New France. New York, NY: Fitzhenry and Whiteside.

Montgomery, C. (2002). The Spanish redemption: Heritage, power, and loss on New Mexico’s Upper Rio Grande. University of California Press.

Montgomery, R. G., Smith, W. & Brew, J. O. (1949). Franciscan Awatovi, The excavation and conjectural reconstruction of a 17th Century Spanish mission establishment at a Hopi Indian Town in Northeastern Arizona.” Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 36. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Morison, S. E. (1971). The European discovery of America: The northern voyages AD 500-1600. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nash, G. B. (1992). Red, white, and black: The peoples of early North America. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Pearson.

Nassaney, M. S. (2015). The archaeology of the North American fur trade. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Niellon, F. (2008). La pêche en Nouvelle-France. In Les traces de la Nouvelle-France, edited by Marc St-Hilaire, Alain Roy, Mickaël Augeron et Dominique Guillemet.. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval https://atlas.cieq. ca/les-traces-de-la-nouvelle-france /la-peche-en-nouvelle-france.pdf

Noël Hume, I. (1964). Archaeology: Handmaiden to history,” The North Carolina Historical Review 41(2): 214-225.

Noël Hume, I. (1979) Martin’s Hundred: The Discovery of a lost colonial Virginia settlement. New York: Delta.

Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, Á., Covey, C. & Pilkington, W. T. (1983). Cabeza de Vaca’s adventures in the unknown interior of America.

Orser, C. E. & Fagan, B. M. (1995). Historical archaeology. HarperCollins College Publishers.

Paynter, R. (1988). Steps to an archaeology of capitalism: Material change and class analysis.” In The recovery of meaning: Historical archaeology in the eastern United States, edited by Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter Jr. pp. 407-433. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Pendery, S. R. (2012). Saint Croix Island, Maine: History, archaeology and interpretation. Occasional Papers in Maine Archaeology Number 14. Maine Archaeology Society, Augusta, ME.

Pope, P. (2008). The archaeology of France’s migratory fishery on Newfoundland’s Petit Nord. Rêves d’Amériques: Regard sur l’archéologie de la Nouvelle France. Archéologiques, Collection hors série 2, Montréal. 38-54.

Pope, P. (2015) Bretons, Basques, and Inuit in Labrador and northern Newfoundland: The control of maritime resources in the 16th and 17th centuries Études inuit. Inuit studies, 39(1), 15.

Pritchard, E. T. (2007). Native New Yorkers: The legacy of the Algonquian People of New York. Council Oak Books.

Purser, M. (1999). Ex occidente lux? An archaeology of later capitalism in the nineteenth-century west. Historical archaeologies of capitalism, edited by Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, pp.115-141. New York: Plenum Press.

Preucel, R. W. (editor) (2002). Archaeologies of the Pueblo Revolt: Identity, meaning and renewal in the Pueblo world. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Reitz, E. J. (1993). Evidence for animal use at the missions of Spanish Florida. In The Spanish missions of La Florida, Bonnie G. McEwan, editor, pp. 376-398. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Reynolds, C. (1906). Albany chronicles: A history of the city arranged chronologically. Albany NY: J. B. Lyon Company.

Roberts, D. (2004). The Pueblo Revolt: The secret rebellion that drove the Spaniards out of the Southwest. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Smith, W., Woodbury, R. B., & Woodbury, N. F. S. (1966). The excavation of Hawikuh by Frederick Webb Hodge: Report of the Hendricks-Hodge expedition, 1917-1923. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation, Vol. XX. New York.

Straube, B. A. (2013). ‘A sure token of their being there’: Artefacts from England’s Colonial Ventures at Roanoke and Jamestown.” In Exploring Atlantic transitions: Archaeologies of transience and permanence in New Found Lands, edited by Peter Edward Pope, and Shannon Lewis-Simpson, pp. 190-201. Boydell & Brewer Ltd.

Thomas, D. H. (1989). The Spanish missions of La Florida: An overview. In Columbian consequences, Volume 2: Archaeological and historical perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East, David Hurst Thomas, editor, pp. 357-397. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Thomas, D. H. (1993). The archaeology of Mission Santa Catalina de Guale: Our first fifteen years.” In The missions of La Florida, edited by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 1-34.. University of Florida Press.

Tremblay, R. (2016). The St. Lawrence Iroquoians: Corn people. Pointe-á-Callière Museum, Montréal, QC.

Tummon, J. & Gray, W. B. (1995). Before and beyond Sainte-Marie: 1987-1990 Excavations at Sainte Marie among the Huron Site Complex (circa 1200-1990). Midland, ON: Sainte-Marie Mission Park.

Vega, G. (1993) La Florida. In The De Soto chronicles: The expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543, Volume II, Lawrence A. Clayton, Vernon James Knight, Jr., and Edward C. Moore, editors, pp. 25-559. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.

Voss, B. L. (2014). Narratives of colonialism, grand and not so grand: a critical reflection on the archaeology of the Spanish and Portuguese Americas. In Archaeology of culture contact and colonialism in Spanish and Portuguese America, pp. 353-361. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Wade, M. F. (2008). Missions, missionaries, and Native Americans: Long-term processes and daily practices. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Wallace, B. (2003). The Norse in Newfoundland: L’Anse aux Meadows and Vinland. Newfoundland and Labrador Studies 19(1).

Wallace, B. (2009) L’Anse aux Meadows, Leif Eriksson’s Home in Vinland, Journal of the North Atlantic: 115.

Warrick, G. (2003). European infectious disease and depopulation of the Wendat-Tionantate (Huron-Petun). World Archaeology, 35(2), 258-275.

Waselkov, G. A. (1997). The archaeology of French Colonial North America: A critical analysis of the literature.” In The archaeology of French Colonial North America: English-French edition, edited by Gregory Waselkov, pp. 12-41. Society for Historical Archaeology, Guides to Historical Archaeological Literature, No 5.

Weber, D. J. (editor) (1999). What caused the Pueblo Revolt of 1680? Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston.

White, C. L. (2022). The archaeology of Burning Man: The rise and fall of Black Rock City. University of New Mexico Press.

White, E. C. (2016). ‘As it was originally laid out by the General’: George Washington and his Upper Garden. Historical Archaeology, 50(1), 45-60.

Wilcox, M. (2009). The Pueblo Revolt and the mythology of conquest: An Indigenous archaeology of contact. University of California Press.

Willison, G. F. (1945). Saints & strangers: Lives of the Pilgrim fathers and their families. Transaction Publishers.

Further Exploration

This list includes publicly available resources referenced in or relevant to this chapter, which may be of interest to readers who want to learn more. The URLs are typed out below as a courtesy for those who are reading a print version of the text. Please keep in mind that links may break over time and may not be immediately updated. Instructors should use discretion when assigning materials from this list. While the chapter itself has been checked for web accessibility, the editors do not vouch for the accessibility of all supplementary linked resources.

African Burial Ground – https://www.nps.gov/afbg/index.htm

Birnirk Peoples – Birnirk National Historic Landmark – https://www.nps.gov/places/birnirk-site.htm

Colonial Williamsburg – https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/

Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery – https://www.daacs.org/

Enslaved: Peoples of the Historical Slave Trade – https://enslaved.org/

Fort Barrancas – National Park Service – https://www.nps.gov/guis/planyourvisit/fort-barrancas-area.htm

Mission San Luis – https://missionsanluis.org/virtualTour/

National Historic Preservation Act – https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/national-historic-preservation-act.htm

Parks Canada – Saint Croix Island International Historic Site – https://parks.canada.ca/lhn-nhs/nb/stcroix

Pensacola Colonial Frontiers Blog – https://pensacolacolonialfrontiers.blogspot.com/

Red Bay – Red Bay Basque Whaling Station – https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1412

San Marcos de Apalache – Florida State Parks – https://www.floridastateparks.org/parks-and-trails/san-marcos-de-apalache-historic-state-park

Society for Historical Archaeology – https://sha.org/

United States Parks Service – Saint Croix Island – https://www.nps.gov/sacr/index.htm