Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
Society for American Archaeology
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF EUROCENTRISM Author(s): Charles E. Orser, Jr. Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 77, No. 4 (October 2012), pp. 737-755Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23486487Accessed: 06-10-2015 22:18 UTC
REFERENCESLinked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23486487?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF EUROCENTRISM
Charles E. Orser, Jr.
The role of Europe and Europeans in the archaeology of post-1500 history has recently been critiqued. Some research has
been pejoratively labeled Eurocentrism. This paper addresses the problems with adopting an emotional understanding of Eurocentrism and argues instead for its archaeological examination within the framework of an explicit multiscalar mod
ern-world (historical) archaeology. An example comes from seventeenth-century Dutch settlements located in and around
present-day Albany, New York.
Hace poco se criticó el papel de europa y los europeos en la arqueología después de 1500. Algunas investigaciones han sido
prejudicialmente designado eurocéntricos. Este artículo se dirige a los problemas de adoptar un conocimiento puramente ide
ológico del eurocentrismo y en su lugar argumenta que se examina dentro un marco explícito de escalas múltiples de la arque
ología del mundo histórico y moderno. Se proporciona un ejemplo de los asentamientos holandeses del siglo diecisiete
localizados en los circundantes de Albany, Nueva York, pero también esta perspectiva es importante para los arqueólogos que analizan la época antes del contacto.
What
is the proper role for Europeans in 1994). Most historical archaeologists continued to the archaeology of the recent past? acknowledge their interest in colonialism, if This simple question has become in- sometimes only obliquely, and by the mid-1970s
creasingly relevant at the outset of the twenty-first most practitioners had accepted that their focus of
century. The mid-twentieth-century archaeologists study was "the archaeology of the spread of Eu
who founded American historical archaeology ropean culture throughout the world since the fif
took it for granted that the archaeology of Euro- teenth century and its impact on indigenous peo pean settlements would frame their field and they pies" (Deetz 1977:5).
overtly expressed a nascent global perspective by Today, most practicing historical archaeolo
arguing that "a comparability of artifacts [existed] gists have abandoned the callow understanding between East Africa and Virginia" (Pilling that culture contact is exposed by the quantitative 1968:8). This approach came to be called "a com- ratio of European to indigenous artifacts (e.g., parative international perspective" (Deetz 1991:8). Quimby 1939,1966; Quimby and Spoehr 1951).
Large-scale, truly international comparison Archaeologists who have reframed the intellectual
has yet to be accomplished in historical archae- position of the discipline toward European colo
ology, but post-Columbian, European colonialism nialism no longer perceive European artifacts as
has always been in the consciousnesses of his- historical documents designed by superior people,
torical archaeologists. In fact, as early as 1943 the nor do they believe that indigenous peoples un
archaeology of post-1500 history could be rea- critically and impassively accepted the foreign ar
sonably termed "Colonial-Archaeology" (Setzler tifacts they were offered. Archaeologists no
1943:218). The earliest historical archaeologists longer imagine Europeans as the only effective
envisioned their research as the intellectual coun- cultural performers, agents of superiority who
terpart of precolumbian archaeology, the field in could perfectly enact their colonial plans in per which most of them had been trained (see South feet conformity with their original designs com
Charles E. Orser, Jr. ■ Department of Anthropology, Division of Research and Collections, New York State Museum,
Albany, NY 12230 ([email protected])
American Antiquity 77(4), 2012, pp. 737-755
Copyright ©2012 by the Society for American Archaeology
737
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
738 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 4,2012
pletely oblivious to the natural environment (e.g., that archaeologists interrogating the most recent
Mrozowski 2010; Rockman 2010) and to the in- centuries have much to offer by unapologetically
digenous peoples whom they encountered (e.g., interrogating the metanarrative of Eurocentrism
Jordan 2008; Lucas 2006; Lydon 2009; Metcalf and thus reproblematizing the colonial European 2010; Middleton 2008). This new wave of re- world, believing that "understanding society often search (after Stoler 1992:319-320) has pro- requires a metanarrative" (Meskell and Preucel
foundly altered the discourse of colonialism by 2004:125). I explore here the critique of Euro
promoting concepts of identity and entanglement, centrism in historical archaeology, explain the
acceptance and rejection, acquiescence and re- rationale behind the creation of an explicit mod sistance. In the process, the archaeological un- ern-world (historical) archaeology rooted in con
derstanding of post-Columbian history has been scientious socio-structural framing, and address
significantly enriched. Eurocentric expression in one part of colonial It would be anachronistic and retrograde to North America, New Netherland.
criticize the achievements realized during the maturation of historical archaeology into a more Eurocentrism culturally sensitive and anthropologically rele vant endeavor. The intellectual achievements At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the
within the realm of culture contact studies alone rulers of eight small countries in Western
have exponentially improved the appositeness Europe—accounting for only 1.6 percent of the and extra-disciplinary authority of the field and world's land surface—controlled huge territories have transformed the archaeology of the colo- and asserted myriad rights over hundreds of mil
nial endeavor into a major intellectual force with lions of colonial "subjects" (Abernethy 2000:6). transdisciplinary relevance. Without seeking to di- The desire of European (and later American) minish these improvements, I do wish, however, rulers to transplant their citizens around the to engage with one facet of the project to trans- globe —based on diverse political, religious, figure the archaeology of colonialism: recent at- philosophic, and economic rationales—was an
tempts to assign Eurocentrism only as a pejorative integral element of the imperialist project, which label rather than to investigate it as a cultural at its root is "the practice, the theory, and the at
product of post-Columbian global history. titudes of a dominating metropolitan center ruling My central thesis is that by adopting an under- a distant territory" (Said 1993:8). By the start of
theorized, purely ideological view of Eurocen- the twentieth century, Europe's role in colonizing, trism in the effort to privilege heretofore silenced conquering, and reshaping what came to be called
non-European cultural histories—even in the the Third World had created acute cultural crises
name of enfranchisement—has profound impli- (Prashad 2007) as it became abundantly clear in cations for archaeological practice. I argue that a retrospect that "no one colonizes innocently" (Cé strict adherence to the silencing of Europe(ans) in saire 2000:39). the name of rejecting Eurocentrism has the unin- At its most basic, Eurocentrism is the percep tended consequence of masking the role of nation- tion that Europe constitutes the center of the uni state imperialism in the post-Renaissance world, verse. Eurocentrism is an internalized intellectual In attempting to rehabilitate indigenous history by space that inculcates biased cultural centering excising Europe(ans), researchers may mistak- (Sayyid 2003:128-129)—albeit in a loosely de
enly present conservative doxa (after Bourdieu fined, relatively disorganized, and contextual 2003:22) and in the process offer deceptively manner—that first grew to prominence during the
rosy images of past daily experience under colo- Renaissance among educated elites who had ac nial domination and oppression. Such acts of in- cess to the most authoritative tracts of primitive tellectual gentrification (after Zizek 1998) do ethnography (see Gerbi 1973;Hodgen 1971; Lam nothing to advance the decolonization of the an- bropoulos 1993; Rabasa 1993; Smith 1999). The
thropological project, but rather have the unin- most renowned polemists advised that Europe and
tended consequence of "trivializing the experi- its peoples were specially endowed to conquer ence of oppression" (Bourgois 1997:112). I argue the world as part of a universalist, evolutionary
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Orser] AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF EUROCENTRISM 739
doctrine. This set of tenets—a collective "fallacy continued to struggle for many years "to resolve
of developmentalism" (Dussel 1993:67-68)—was the problems to which Europe has not been able
perfectly consistent with the modernist rationality to find the answers" (Fanon 1963:314), but that that characterized the European Enlightenment Europeans, for the most part, had created or at
(Kanth 2005:91) and the eventual development of least exacerbated.
Social Darwinism (Brantlinger 2003). Eurocen- Individuals who directly experienced the per trism thus developed as a rather incoherent, albeit sonal cost of colonialist domination were not the
generally consistent and "spell-binding" (Peet only opponents to Eurocentric policies. As early 2005:937), set of distorted social theories that sub- as the 1820s, Jeremy Bentham ( 1830:1) had made
jugated indigenous ways of being and knowing to an impassioned challenge to France to surrender those of a collectivized Europe (Amin 1989:90; its colonies, arguing that "justice, consistency, Rabasa 1993:14). The persistence of these social policy, economy, honour, [and] generosity" all
theories—often presented as tropes of liberation— demanded it. More recently, many prominent
has often meant in practical terms that "Europe scholars—largely led by literary critics—have works as a silent referent in historical knowledge" foregrounded the problems inherent in construct
(Chakrabarty 1992:2). ing European cultural assumptions as "the normal,
Widespread critical consciousness about Eu- the natural [and] the universal" (Ashcroft et al.
rocentrism surfaced during the rise of multicul- 1998:90-91). The European, post-Columbian turalism, as community activists, cultural sur- "obsession with self-aggrandizement" (Ephraim vivalists, and politically engaged scholars began 2003:4)—which in history included the coales
to argue that non-Western cultures—including cence of capitalism, patriarchy, racism, colonial
their traditions of art, literature, architecture, ism, anthropocentrism, and Christian ideology dance, and music—have intrinsic value and de- (Kanth 2005:91)—constructed Europe as
serve to be acknowledged on their own terms uniquely progressive and innovative and everyone
(e.g., Hughes 1992). Long before the academic else much less so (Blaut 1993:18). For many, Eu
"discovery" of Eurocentrism, however, a number rope became the quintessential embodiment of
of oppressed groups in colonial and postcolonial cultural exceptionalism (e.g., Landes 1998). territories had voiced their opposition to the view Historians have been especially sensitive to the
that the world revolved solely around charge of European exceptionalism, and many of
Europe(ans). The 1920s was an especially active them have exposed the history of the exception decade for the establishment of coteries of resis- alist discourse and explicitly disavowed its prac tance to European imperialism. Many of these Eu- tice (e.g., Blaut 2000; McGerr 1991; Wilnetz
ropean-based organizations—such as the Ligue 1984). Other historians have written global his
Universelle de Défense de la Race Noire, La tory from a non-Eurocentric perspective (e.g.,
Comité de Défense de la Race Nègre, and the Crossley 2008; Hart 2008; Marks 2002). Perhaps
League Against Imperialism—had avowed Com- the strongest, most concerted effort to demolish
munist affiliations or at least had been influenced the fallacy of Eurocentrism has come from Si
by the emancipatory rhetoric of the Russian Rev- nologists. Their examination of global history
olution (Young 2001). The League specifically has demonstrated that many of the cultural fea
openly advocated the building of revolutionary tures generally attributed to Europe(ans) were ac
forces to fight imperialist oppression in the cause tually first developed in Asia, most notably in
of global freedom and democracy (Jayawardena China (e.g., Frank 1998; Goody 2006; Pomeranz
1974:10; Johns 1975:216). At the same time, 2000; Wong 2000). As Frank (1998:117) has
Marcus Garvey's Universal Negro Improvement noted, "the entire world economic order was—
and Conservation Association and African Com- literally—Sinocentric. Christopher Columbus and
munities League (UNIA)—founded in Jamaica in after him many Europeans up until Adam Smith
1914—found adherents around the globe. Even in knew that." Statements such as these have un
apartheid South Africa, the Communist Party had derstandably occasioned much debate and re
1,600 black members in 1928 (Cobley 1990:195). analysis (e.g., Duchesne 2001-2002). At a mini
Leaders of postcolonial resistance movements mum, they proffer a global perspective on recent
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
740 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 4,2012
history that is inclusive without being Eurocentric, theories of Eurocentrism (following Asante Historical archaeology in the United States 1999)? And perhaps most basically, is not the
emerged as a profession during the rise of the an- study of Europe(ans) inherently Eurocentric? ticolonial struggles that followed the Second The sharpest critics of allocating a prominent World War, but its practitioners managed to ignore role in historical archaeology to Europe(ans) have them. For the most part, they tended to segment labeled such research as irredeemably Eurocentric
European and indigenous topics even in socio- (Schmidt and Walz 2007a:54,2007b: 129). This se historical situations of direct, face-to-face cul- rious charge carries the implication that "African, tural contact (e.g., Walthall 1991; Walthall and not to mention Asian, Native American, Aus Emerson 1992). As the field matured and began tralian, and Pacific, histories will remain inex to be refashioned as a truly global pursuit in the cusably silenced by archaeologists unwilling to 1990s (Falk 1991; Hall 2000; Orser 1996), some tackle questions that count" (Schmidt and Walz
archaeologists responded to analytical segregation 2007a: 67, emphases in original). Similarly, any ef
by offering stiff critiques of the role that Europe fort to "provincialize" Europe (after Chakrabarty should play in the field. Their intellectual ratio- 2000)—"to escape from European/Western para nale was consistent with the emerging, more nu- digms"— merely serves to "limit the gaze of his
anced understanding of culture contact, as well as torical archaeologists upon other societies and
with the developing interest in ethnogenesis, the their pasts" (Schmidt and Walz 2007a:54). This is construction of history, and the realization that a weighty condemnation of an entire subfield of colonization was not solely the province of post- archaeology that had been explicitly created to
Columbian history (e.g., Cameron 2011; Dietler examine European colonialism.
2010; Dyson 1985; Gosden 2004; Lawrence and An even more pessimistic view of historical ar
Shepherd 2006; Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002). chaeology has recently been offered by Dawdy These works collectively established that the ere- (2010:763), who argues that historical archaeol ation of colonies—dependent territories situated ogists, by attempting to examine the material and within empires (Abernethy 2000:21)—have a spatial characteristics of "modernity," have been much greater time depth and a substantially engaged in a clever "self-deception" that causes
greater geographical breadth than historical ar- them to be "condemned to repeat or simply elab
chaeologists had originally imagined. The broader orate on the grand narratives of the period." Not view of colonialism became archaeological all anthropologists have apparently been "duped canon, even though a number of social theorists— by modernity," but historical archaeologists seek
notably the proponents of world-systems ing to engage with Europe(ans) have most cer
analysis—argued that the creation of a capitalist tainly fallen prey to the trap,
world-system made post-Columbian colonialism Some of the archaeologists who apparently
unique (Wallerstein 2004:23-41 ). have been duped by modernity are those who ac
A more substantive engagement with the role cept that culture contact involves at least two cul
of Europe sought to reach beyond its narrowly tures. In their critique of Stahl et al. (2004), perceived spatial and temporal limits as post- Schmidt and Walz (2007b) oppose the plan of Columbian and western European, with critics "studying the lives of those on 'both sides' of the
subtly questioning whether Europe was even a power divide" and deny that this perspective "re valid research topic within anthropologically in- veals how actors in a variety of positions are mu
spired historical archaeology. They posed nu- tually implicated in the historical processes that merous, trenchant questions, such as: If we are shape present sensibilities and possibilities" (Stahl trained anthropologists practicing archaeology, et al. 2004:96). Rather, they understand (after should we not focus our considerable interpretive Cooper and Staler 1997) that colonialism was
power on the non-European world? Is not one shaped by unilateral indigenous "struggle," and great strength of anthropology—including its ar- propose that "this dynamic relationship is much
chaeological component—the examination of cul- more than simply seeing and understanding both tares with orally transmitted knowledge bases? sides of power interactions" (Schmidt and Walz
Should not all archaeologists reject the distorted 2007b: 136). A more careful reading of the Cooper
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Orser] AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF EUROCENTRISM 741
and Stoler (1997:ix) quote, however, discloses comitant "silences" substantiate "false separa that Schmidt and Walz downplay the clause tions" (Schmidt and Walz 2007b: 142), and the use
"thinking about empire as much as the daily ef- of "modernity" in "most social sciences and hu forts to manage it." Stoler and Cooper (1997:3) manities" (Dawdy 2010:763)—and certainly in continue in this vein: "Our interest is more in post-Columbian archaeology—encourages an in
how both colonies and métropoles shared in the herently unfair and biased perspective on the past dialectics of inclusion and exclusion, and in what (e.g., Funari et al. 1999:3-5; Little 1994:16). In
ways the colonial domain was distinct from the deed, explicit exegesis about such dichotomies
metropolitan one" (emphasis added). Their inter- leads to more profound introspection about the re est lies in "the contingency of metropolitan-colo- lationships between process and history (e.g., nial connections and its consequences for patterns Kohl 2008), short-term events and long-term
of imperial rule" rather than in subtracting Eu- structures (e.g., Harding 2005), and imposed ar
ropeas) from the equation (Stoler and Cooper tificiality (e.g., Lightfoot 1995; Silliman 2005). 1997:1, emphasis added). The problems posed by the creation of the pre
By adopting the position that indigenous history:history divide as false separation is co
agency is unbounded by sociohistorical context, gently examined in the city of New Orleans by Schmidt and Walz eliminate domination and op- Matthews (2007). In his careful examination of
pression, and consequently reinforce the Euro- "being Indian" in an urban environment suppos
pean power stmcture. By exclusively empowering edly devoid of indigenous involvement, Matthews local narratives, they effectively separate public offers one of the most profound illustrations of the
problems and daily life, a program that ultimately wisdom of eliminating periodization in archaeo
"leads to an acceptance of the status quo, of in- logical reasoning while at the same time refusing
justice and inequality" (Rosenau 1992:84n). In to eliminate the relevant relations of power. Shift
privileging "the agency of the 'colonized,'" ing the focus from Native American individuals—
Schmidt and Walz simultaneously erase history people moving through space-time as subjects— and refute the postcolonial project. By rejecting Matthews concentrates on the trans-temporal the "inequality of knowledge" that existed in the performance of being Indian. This distinction has
suppression of freedoms associated with Euro- two significant implications that defy facile tem
pean colonialism (Balibar 1994:56), they rein- poral segmentation. First, it demands that ar
force the power structures reproduced by domi- chaeologists reflexively confront the creation of
nant elites in colonial sociohistorical spaces. Their "the Indian as native research subject" against
perspective is reminiscent of Lenin's (1970:132) the backdrop of archaeologist-Native American
observation that "Bourgeois scholars and publi- community politics. And second, it permits in cists usually come out in defense of imperialism sight into the sociohistorical contexts in which the
in a somewhat veiled form; they obscure its com- interactions between Indians and non-Indians led
plete domination and its profound roots, strive to to the creation of "the practical meanings of cul
push into the forefront particular and secondary tural difference" in the past (with "the past" lit
details and do their best to distract attention from erally meaning "before today") (Matthews essentials." 2007:274). These implications lead Matthews to
A foundational piece of reasoning for such inspect the role of "being Indian" in New Orleans, critics concerns the establishment of manichean an investigation that purposefully conflates the re
essentialisms. They argue that the creation of du- lationships between political economy, state for
alities in archaeology—most notably history:pre- mation, and essentialism in archaeological prac
history and premodern: modern—has infused tice. He determines that labeling Native
epistemological blindness into the discipline. For Americans "prehistoric"—a historicized and
example, they argue that the employment of racialized stereotype—causes them to disappear
"modernity" as a subject precludes cross-cultural from nineteenth-century life. This act of being ef
analysis and eliminates the close examination of fectively disappeared perpetuates multiscalar vi
cultures not influenced by the colonizing practices olence: to the individuals themselves, to nine
and imperialist designs of Europe(ans). The con- teenth-century New Orleans' society, and to the
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
742 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 4, 2012
present-day conceptualization of past lived real- torical) archaeology—that refuses to ignore Eu
ity. In this respect, Matthews performs an act that rope(ans) has developed out of the dual realization
is intellectually equivalent in plan if not in that the purely methodological definition of his
methodology to the archaeology of desaparecidos torical archaeology has inherent merit, and that
in Latin America (Funari and Vieira de Oliveira the historical-archaeological research of Classical,
2009:28-29) and of mass graves in dictatorial postcontact Mayanist, and pre-Ming-era Chinese
Africa (Haglund et al. 2001). archaeologists provides a different discourse of
Matthews's thoughtful interrogation of the con- knowledge than the archaeology of the post-1500 struction of history using power, authority, strug- world (Orser 2004b:9-14). Using the works of
gle, and visibility—in contradistinction to the view numerous scholars from the same general intel
offered by Schmidt and Walz (2007a, 2007b)— lectual tradition (Braudel 1973,1977; Marx 1967, raises several issues of profound significance to 1970; Marx and Engels 1970; Patterson 1997;
contemporary archaeological practice, not the least Wallerstein 1974,1979,1980; Wolf 1982,1999), in importance being to call into question the pre- modern-world (historical) archaeology under
historicizing of the past. Matthews (2007:287) ar- stands the post-1500 world as a different place gues, for example, that "even in historical archae- than earlier eras. Accordingly, this archaeology,
ology, our job is to recover for present like "the practices of anthropology remain[s] very
consumption what has been lost or buried—i.e., much embedded in an eschatology of modern made prehistoric—about past human lives." This rupture" (Dawdy 2010:763), and explicitly so. salient point resonates with the critique of false pe- Rather than to accept false periodization, the
riodization, even though Matthews does not di- real intent is to investigate the constituents of the
minish the impact of European domination; the process of modernity. The intellectual tension
very label "prehistoric" cannot be applied without embodied by the murky relationship between his
the purposeful European marginalization of Native tory (past actuality) and its examination (chroni Americans living in New Orleans. With the loss of cle created from selected past actuality) is cele native self-determination, because of the rise of brated rather than condemned. Accordingly, all
non-native power and authority in south modern-world archaeology is historical archae
Louisiana, Native Americans were "essentialized ology by definition, but not all historical archae as persons of different culture whose principle at- ology is modern-world archaeology. The archae tribute was their anachronistic 'other' way of life" ology espoused by Schmidt and Walz is historical
(Matthews 2007:284). archaeology but not modern-world archaeology
Matthews concretely illustrates that indigenous because it denies the myriad relationships of
archaeology of the post-1500 era—regardless of power, dominance, and oppression forced on in
theoretic perspective—cannot be truly informed in digenous peoples by various European nation
the absence of Europe(ans) (also see Liebmann states since about 1500. Their archaeology rightly
and Murphy 2010). His research helps to demon- concentrates on struggle but ignores the reasons
strate that to create a truly new archaeology of behind the need to struggle. Modem-world (his
post-Columbian sociohistory one must not gloss torical) archaeology necessarily relies on research over difference in favor of an Enlightenment-in- in historical archaeology but looks beyond it.
spired "intensive universalisai" (Balibar The archaeology of the modern world —
2004:58-59). Ignoring European global dominance investigated as a process of becoming and being does violence to the telling of the past and harms (Orser 1994,2004a, 2013)—produces unique op the social consciousness that postcolonial archae- portunities but concomitantly creates special bur
ology celebrates (see Lydon and Rizvi 2010). dens. As a research project, modem-world (his torical) archaeology will be forever developing
Modern-World (Historical) Archaeology and because the vcrT word "modem" is itself con
Problematizing Eurocentrism tested and mutable•11 does not disPute the ethno
graphic and historical research that illustrates the The inspiration for a different approach to histor- presence of multiple modernities (e.g., Englund ical archaeology—an explicit modem-world (his- and Leach 2000; Kahn 2001; Tambiah 2000;
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Orser] AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF EUROCENTRISM 743
Zurndorfer 1997). Rather, modern-world (histor- sociocultural manifestations that are expressed
ical) archaeology perceives modernity as com- on many spatial levels (collectively denoted as
posed of myriad, intertwined spatio-temporal lev- "the capitalist project"); racialization—the els. As such, the simplest definition of "modern" process of inventing biological and social inferi suffices: "late, recent, not ancient, not antique" ority using ideology, pseudo-science, administra
(Johnson 1760:506). This definition relies on a tive power, repressive authority, and other legal flexible temporality and presents a way "to think and extra-legal forms of domination and oppres about the history of power in an age when capi- sion (see Orser 2007); and Eurocentrism—a spe tal and [its] governing institutions [were devel- cialized form of ethnocentrism that elevates to su
oping] a global reach" (Chakrabarty 2002:12). periority an imagined, homogenized "European" Instead of shying away from the complexities in- culture and heritage over all other cultures and herent in the meaning of "modern" or to dispute heritages. These four forces, as they were envi
the simultaneous reproduction of multiple moder- sioned, idealized, and put into practice in the
nities, the practice of modern-world (historical) world after about 1500, are tightly interlinked
archaeology embraces the confusion and cele- and coterminous. For example, "without the
brates the dissonances between globalized, re- power of capitalism, and all the structural inno
gionalized, and localized sociohistorical contexts vations that accompanied it in political, social, in the post-1500 world. and cultural organization, Eurocentrism might
As a process, modernity need not be initialized have been just another ethnocentrism" (Dirlik or periodized. It need only be stressed that mod- 1999:12). Capitalist globalization and racializa
ern-world (historical) archaeology commences tion are similarly linked in the same structural
with the conjunction of forces, beliefs, ideas, and fashion (see e.g., Weiss 2006), as are the other
independent developments that "come together in meta-forces of modernity,
ways that interact with one another, creating a The forces provide the uniqueness of the mod
unique historical moment" (Marks 2002:12). ern world, a universe in which "the towering out
Modern-world (historical) archaeology accepts line of Europe's early modern and modern story
that after about 1500, a history-altering conjucture has been impossible to ignore The magnitude of four forces united to create simultaneously nu- of the effect was the central fact of human expe
merous new worlds. The four forces have coeval rience in the past three centuries" (Crossley
planes of existence and in the broadest sense are 2008:107-108). Archaeologists wishing to in
pan-cultural. Each is enacted in the post-1500 vestigate post-1500 history are "for better or
world through a complex, multilevel series of ac- worse forced into an encounter with both Western
tions, practices, and traditions within structures modernity and Western narratives of moderniza that are generally homologous though none are tion" (Kahn 2001:651). Ignoring these processes
teleological. Their execution in real space-time only creates new silences. While performing the
creates history. These four forces, because they admirable work of foregrounding indigenous lo
are still being enacted, also affect the ways in cal narratives, disregarding the meta-forces sub
which contemporary archaeology is practiced, merges the often-terrible realities of lived history These forces thus hover over archaeological (Eagleton 1996:52). Re-problematizing Eu
practice—the telling of history and the practice of rope(ans) is thus a central task of modern-world
research—regardless of whether or not archaeol- (historical) archaeology. Part of this work of in
ogists wish to acknowledge them. The overarch- tellectual adjustment involves coming to terms
ing, meta-forces are: colonialism—the spatial with the meta-forces of modernity, movement of people from one culture or region Instead of viewing Eurocentrism unidimen
into another culture's territory with the intent of sionally as an intellectual deficiency to be over
creating temporary, intermittent, and permanent come, modern-world (historical) archaeology settlements using enforced relations of power in- seeks both to expose and overthrow the historical
eluding conquest and control (as opposed to col- dangers of Eurocentrism at the same time that it
onization [following Rowlands 1998]); explicitly interrogates its beginnings, manifesta
capitalism—an economic system with significant tions, and continuance. Rather than constituting a
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
744 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 4,2012
triumphalist view that exploits European excep- This metaphor allows for "socio-structural fram tionalism (Bagchi 2005:10), this interrogation of ing" (the selection of levels of resolution) that, for Eurocentrism is a process of discovery and re- modern-world (historical) archaeology, must nec
covery. Part of this process involves reinvesting in essarily be reflexive. Individual archaeologists must multiscalar analysis. understand that they consciously select specific
Archaeologists ' interest in multiscalar analysis space-time frames, they must ponder and accept the
may have begun for many with the discovery of reasons for selecting the frames of analysis, and
Braudel's (1966) three temporal rhythms (e.g., they must appreciate the role that frame selection Ames 1991; Bintliff 1991; Ferris 2009; Little and plays in interpretation. Unlike the archaeological Shackel 1989; Smith 1992; Voss 2008). Still oth- practice advocated by Schmidt and Walz, modern ers have employed multiscalar analysis without world (historical) archaeology overtly conceptual explicit reference to Braudel (e.g., Crumley and izes the various socio-structural frames, seeking
Marquardt 1987; Lightfoot et al. 1998; Miroff dialectically to engage critically with "entities and and Knapp 2009; Nassaney and Sassaman 1995). the relationships between entities, past, present, One of the inherent strengths of a multiscalar and future" (Marquardt 1992:103).
perspective is that it exploits the tensions in ar- Brief reference to the European-enforced en
chaeology between multifarious scales—the myr- slavement of people of African heritage will suf iad spaces of social practice (after Lefebvre fice to demonstrate the analytical promise of socio
1991)—by opening a space "to grasp the rela- structural framing. Shortly after 1500, the major tionship between the small scale" and the "wider European nation-states all adopted the structure of
processes of transformation" (Johnson 2006:13; African enslavement as a core element of their Eu
also see Hall and Silliman 2006:8; Orser rocentric belief system, arguing that non-Euro
2010:116-120). This practice permits analysts to peans were slaves "by nature" as an element of
perceive the "coherence and collective causal their philosophical doxa (Gerbi 1973:74-76), de
power" (Linebaugh and Rediker 2000:193) of veloped partly as a response to their own en discrete archaeological sites that may appear un- slavement by North Africans (Colley 2004:56-65). linked when viewed exclusively at one scale. Thus, in the largest frame, we may accurately
One way to conceptualize the multiscalar view post-Columbian, European-enforced slav
analysis in archaeology is by adopting the ery as an element of Eurocentrism (which also
metaphor of a photographer adjusting a camera's contains the necessary inclusion of colonialism,
zoom lens: capitalism, and racialization). On the next, more
circumscribed frame, however, the careful analy Imagine a photographer focusing on the broad
outlines of a large object located far away in
order to learn something about the object. The
photographer then twists the zoom lens to
obtain a more detailed, higher-resolution
image of a selected part of the distant object.
As a result something new is observed through
greater attention to the part's details. The zoom
lens may be adjusted further to permit more
precise examination of an even smaller part of
the object. Each adjustment permits a novel
visualization of reality by enabling the
observer to come closer to whatever is being
observed, in a subjective if not literal sense. _ . . ... , „ ... . . , , This hypothetical example dlustrates that no For this reason each twist of the zoom lens can . , . , , ....
, . . ,. .. , need exists to denigrate research conducted within generate a new description of reality and per- , , ... . , ^ , ., , , t me boundaries of any socio-structural frame. On haps new ideas to account for what the lens . _ . , , .
adjustment has revealed [ Abernethy 2000:31 ]. the contrary the reflexive knowledge inherent in
accepting the presence of individual frames —
sis of European nation-state slavery reveals that
not all slavery was the same: Anglocentric, Lu
socentric, Francocentric expressions of African
enslavement appear in various sociohistorical con
texts. Taken deeper, differences appear in the prac
tice of Anglocentric slavery. During the American
Revolution, for example, many slaves decided to flee to the British because they perceived Anglo centric slavery to be milder than Americentric
slavery (Jasanoff 2011:48^19). At the smallest
frame, particular differences might be viewed be tween individual plantations or households within the Anglocentric world.
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Orser] AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF EUROCENTRISM 745
both in the lived past and in the analytical tural frame because its originators designed it as
present—strengthens the overall interpretive a competitor to the English East India Company,
power of the archaeology. At the same time, chartered in 1600 (Arrighi 2010:143) and as a di
though, we must acknowledge the inherent dan- rect assault on the power of Spain in the New
ger of working within only the smallest frame World (Boxer 1973:54). Many of the features
(i.e., site). By invoking the uniqueness of a spe- common to today's global capitalism were estab cific space-time frame—and concentrating on it to lished by seventeenth-century Dutch entrepre
the exclusion of all else—we run the risk of re- neurs (Dash 1999:101-102; Garber 1989; Irwin
producing the "partitioning strategies" of the colo- 1991 ; Robins 2006; Scammell 1981:403 ; Schama nialist project (Young 1995:165). 1987:347-348).
The commercial success sought by Dutch mer
The Dutch in the Upper Hudson Valley chant-speculators could not be accomplished
as Eurocentrists purely as a powerful European nation-state, be
cause globally they required the collaboration of
To demonstrate what an archaeology of Euro- numerous indigenous peoples. This situation ob
centrism has to offer, I wish to focus upon Dutch tained in the smaller socio-structural frame of the
New Netherland as an example of one small New World. In the still-smaller frame of the Up
frame within colonial North America. I specifi- per Hudson River Valley, the Dutch first staked
cally confine myself to the Upper Hudson River their claim with the construction of Fort Nassau
Valley in the region around present-day Albany, near present-day Albany, New York, in 1614. This
New York, during the years 1624-1664. Detailing small fort, created for mercantile reasons within
the complex specificity of intercultural contact Mahican territory, "provided both a year-round
and conflict in this region—enacted variously be- base for resident traders and a clear destination for
tween Dutch, English, French, Mohawk, Mohi- Native people" (Bradley 2007:35). Dutch traders
can, and numerous smaller native cultures (e.g., inhabited this fort for at least three years (Huey
Bradley 2007; Cantwell 2008; Dunn 1994; Par- 1988:12-13; Jameson 1909:48). The Dutch West
menter 2010; Rothschild 2003)—is far beyond the India Company made a permanent claim to the re
scope of this paper. This brief examination will il- gion in 1624 with the construction of Fort Orange lústrate only that Eurocentrism can be investi- (Huey 1991:30, 2010:143). In 1630, an Amster
gated in various socio-structural frames from the dam diamond merchant named Kiliaen van Rens
largest (the Dutch nation-state as European) to the selaer received authorization to develop a huge
smallest (the space-time of the individual inhab- patroonship—named Rensselaerswijck—in the
ited property). My separation of Eurocentrism is vicinity of Fort Orange, again on Mahican land
purely heuristic because its practice was tightly (Bradley 2007:59; Dunn 1994:100; Jacobs
entwined with and inseparable from the other 2005:116-119; Merwick 1990:7-8; Nissenson
metanarratives of modernity. 1937; Venema 2010:241-267; Wilcoxen 1984:
The seventeenth-century Dutch are especially 9-10). In 1652, the multicultural settlement that
renowned for their expertise in developing "com- had developed north of Fort Orange, technically
mercial pragmatism" (Schama 1987:67). In 1598, within Rensselaerswijck, was delineated and
speculators from five trading companies sent named Beverwijck, to indicate the residents'com
ships to Indonesia to trade for spices and other mitment to commerce based on the beaver rather
valuable commodities. The public rejoiced when than an allegiance to van Rensselaer as landlord
the ships returned the following year loaded with (Venema 2003:53).
cargo and the shareholders realized a 100-percent Eurocentrism can be observed in each of these
profit (Boxer 1973:25). This success led, in 1602, Dutch creations in various socio-structural
to the union of the individual companies into a frames: globally, continentally (the New World
single monopoly, the Dutch East India Company frame), regionally (the Hudson River Valley
(VOC). The creation of the Dutch West India stretching from New Amsterdam to Rensselaer
Company (WIC) followed in 1621. The creation swijck/ Beverwijck-Fort Orange), and territorially of the VOC existed within a global socio-struc- (Rensselaerswijck/Beverwijck-Fort Orange). In
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
746 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 4,2012
every frame, the Dutch economic designs were ( 1654-1664), Arent van Curler (1643-1660), and
explicit and appeared to be foremost: "Commer- Volkert Jansen Douw (ca. 1652-1685) (Bradley cial rather than political matters, the enhance- 2005; Fisher 2008; Huey 1987, 1996, 1998b; ment of trade rather than the transplantation of a Moody 2002, 2003, 2005; Wilcoxen 1999; 14). Dutch society, became the first order of business The global expression of Dutch Eurocentrism,
for the West India Company in New Netherland" through the mechanism of transoceanic, intercul
(Condon 1968:70). But the Dutch mission in New tural trade, is demonstrated by the presence of
Netherland was not purely economic; they also identical artifacts found at contemporaneous sites
had cultural designs on the region. The earliest in the Netherlands (e.g., Baart 1987; von Dongen Dutch settlers in the region established Dutchness 1995). Their transplantation of European fort de in the Upper Hudson Valley as an element of sign is perfectly homologous with the overall pat
their Eurocentrism. They accomplished this Low tern of their portable material culture, as both
Country version of Europeanization with their overtly express Eurocentrism.
buildings and their portable objects. The co-occurrence of artifacts in and around
Excavations at Fort Orange (Huey 1988,1991, Fort Orange and in the Netherlands is not sur
1998a, 2010) reveal that the Dutch built the for- prising; historical archaeologists take for granted tification in the typical, bastioned style of Euro- the presence of European artifacts at colonial set
pean forts. Dutch military engineers were the first tlements. The unquestioned expectation is that
to follow the Italians in building forts with bas- colonialist settlers sought to recreate tiny pieces tions (Duffy 2006; 10), and like most colonial Eu- of their homelands in their new environments. But
ropean powers, they attempted to construct such why should this be so? Why did European
forts wherever they intended to stay. Thus, they colonists not take just a few objects that would en
built Forte Oranje in Pemambuco, Brazil, in 1631, sure their initial survival—cutting tools and fire to be nearly identical to Fort Orange on the Hud- making equipment, for example—with the ex
son River (Menezes and Rodrigues 1986: pectation that they could live off the land? Why 110-111). Identical European fortifications built did they not expect to learn from the indigenous in disparate colonial territories represent "the vi- inhabitants? Why did the colonial Dutch transport olent beginnings of colonial occupation" (Pels such a vast amount of material culture across the
1997:170) and overtly espouse Eurocentrism. As Atlantic Ocean and then up the Hudson River
imposing, foreign structures they visibly proclaim just to create "Holland on the Hudson" (Rink
the pan-European, global universality of Euro- 1986; see also Huey 1991:50)? centrism by their very presence. The answers to these questions seem so
The artifacts excavated at Fort Orange are patently obvious that perhaps we need not even
equally pan-European in nature. The ceramic as- ask them: as anthropologists we know that peo
semblage, for example, includes majolica and pie take their cultures with them when they em
delft manufactured in the Netherlands, as well as igrate. By not asking such apparently obvious
other earthenwares and stonewares from Italy, questions (even tacitly to ourselves as reflexive
England, the Iberian Peninsula, and Germany, conundrums), however, we ignore them and dis
The presence of porcelain, originally from China miss the reflexivity they inspire. Our expectation but filtered through European networks, indicates that Dutch settlers would bring Dutch materials the expanse of the Dutch trading empire and ref- with them and that they would thus turn up in ar erences their adoption of non-European cultural chaeological excavations is Eurocentrism si traits into their quotidian lives. Their glass drink- multaneously operating in temporally distinct
ing and storage vessels were similarly European socio-structural frames. The importation of Eu
in manufacture, made in workshops throughout ropean objects outside Europe informs a global the Netherlands, Venice, and Germany. These Eurocentrism, just as the differences observed
findings were duplicated at seventeenth-century between patterns of seventeenth-century Dutch
Dutch house sites in the area belonging to various and English importation (see Rye 1865:71) sug settlers: a brickmaker (1631-1653), an indepen- gest nation-state distinctions in the presentation dent trader (ca. 1639-1648), Jurriaen Theunissen of Eurocentrism.
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Orser] AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF EUROCENTRISM 747
The only true variation we might see in the Orange needed the support of the Native peoples overall affiliations of the artifacts by household around them to survive: they "could not afford to
appears in the presence of Native American ob- offend either the Mahicans, on whose land they jects. Excavations at the brickmaker's house in lived, or the Mohawks, who supplied most of the
Beverwijck, for example, produced a bear effigy furs" (Bradley 2007:58). The Puritans' possible smoking pipe that has an Iroquois affiliation, as goading of the Mahicans exacerbated conflict does another pipe found at Fort Orange (Huey within a regional frame and simultaneously in
1991:57-58; Moody 2005:127). Similarly, the tensified it within a global frame. The Dutch in
mid-seventeenth-century trader's house also in New Netherland were caught in a unique "ambi
Beverwijck yielded numerous pieces of chipped guity of universalism" (after Balibar 2004:15) stone, including bifaces and projectile points because of the legal theory that had outlined their
(Moody 2002:3.21). Nevertheless, indigenous ob- moral authority. jects in Dutch homes constitute the exception The legal basis for Dutch expeditions around rather than the rule; the artifacts found inside the the world was created in response to an inter-Eu
remains of Dutch houses are overwhelmingly Eu- ropean conflict that had occurred within the global
ropean in manufacture. frame. In 1603, the renowned Dutch jurist Hugo Another way to perceive Eurocentrism among Grotius came to the aid of the VOC in a dispute
the Dutch is to interrogate their attitudes to and re- with the Portuguese in Southeast Asia
lations with the indigenous cultures that sur- (Borschberg 1999; Buckle 1991). In arguing rounded them. Their feelings toward and under- against the concept of Portuguese primacy in the
standing of Native Americans were complex region, Grotius maintained that every nation-state
(Rothschild 2003:81). Whereas Henry Hudson had equal rights of navigation, fishing, and trad
was reported to have said that "The natives are a ing everywhere in the world (Hart 2008:102;
very good people," the Reverend Jonas Merwick 2006:52). The resultant "law of nations"
Michaëlius described them as savage, wild, "un- that Grotius helped formulate—which at its core
civil and stupid as garden poles" (Jameson also substantiated an individual's natural rights 1909:49,126). Economic realities rested beneath (Brook 2008:68)—was soon twisted "to justify the intercultural relations between Dutch colonists the assertion of public authority by European and indigenous Native Americans, and these of- states in the extra-European world" (Keene ten translated into bad European behavior: "Em- 2002:62). In other words, Grotius's humanist writ
pires of trade did not simply crank over smoothly, ings about personal freedom, self-preservation, one deal, one trading season, one fleet departure and natural rights meant that some people could
after the next. They required ruthlessness" (Mer- express themselves "in extreme ways [such as]
wick 2006:267) submitting to tyrannical government" (Haakon One of the factors of the sociohistorical land- ssen 1996:28). Though Grotius may not have ap
scape that the Dutch did not appreciate upon their proved of all the ways in which his dense legal ar
arrival in the Upper Hudson was the long-term, guments were used, a close relationship
intercultural rivalry between the Mahicans and the developed between his writings "and the modern
Mohawks (Burke 1991:283). The rivalry had practices of colonialism and imperialism" (Keene
long-standing reasons having nothing to do with 2002:62). This, then, is the legal establishment of
Europeans, but if the Massachusetts Puritans had Eurocentric doctrine, not only for the Dutch, but
indeed encouraged the Mahicans to go to war also for the English and the other European na
with their indigenous neighbors (Jennings tion-states (Haakonssen 1996:30). This pan-Eu
1976:315), then the global intra-European conflict ropean understanding was applicable in all socio
between England and the Netherlands had truly structural frames: globally, regionally, and locally, intermeshed with the regional socio-structure Dutch settlement design helped to reinforce
frame. At the same time, "it is impossible to un- Eurocentrism by transfiguring physical distance
derstand Dutch-Indian relations in New York into cultural distance. Unlike French coureurs de
State independently of French-Indian ones in Zwri, who tended to live within the Native villages, Canada" (Trigger 1971:277). The Dutch at Fort the Dutch were required to have Native traders
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
748 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 4,2012
come to them (Jacobs 2009:176; Vernon van Rensselaer gave Bastiaen Jansz Crol instruc
1978:206). The prohibition against allowing Dutch tions to purchase land "from the Mahijcan, traders to visit Native villages was surficially Maquaas [Mohawks], or such other nations as
economic—because the WIC wished to limit ille- have any claims to them," with the admonition
gal trade—but it was also inherently Eurocentric, that Crol should treat them "with all courtesy and
The Dutch, realizing that their fragile New World discretion." Further on, van Rensselaer included economic structure was built upon furs acquired an important caveat: "In case he can not purchase
and traded by Native Americans, strove to main- the said lands from one or two nations, that he
tain good relations with the Mahicans and the purchase the same from all who pretend any right Mohawks, but at the same time they could not to them" (van Laer 1908:159, emphasis added), avoid expressing their Eurocentrism. Dutch traders By 1634, it had become clear, at least to van
often allowed visiting Native traders to stay on Rensselaer, that the Mahicans had decided to sell their lots and even sometimes to lodge with them their land because their leader had died and be in their homes (Venema 2003:91-92), but while cause of "the defeat they suffered in 1629" at the
specific Dutch individuals may not have been hands of the Mohawks (van Laer 1908:306). Van
racially biased against Native Americans, Dutch Rensselaer erroneously believed that he had corn culture was Eurocentric. Adriaen van der Donck, pletely disinherited the Mahicans from their land, the law enforcement officer in Renssalaerswijck but by the 1650s, the Mahicans and the Mohawks
explicitly referenced the "Universal Law of Na- were beginning to complain about land purchases tions"—drawing directly from Grotius—even as that "lasted forever" (Dunn 1994:101). Reacting he referred to the indigenous peoples as wilden to the tension, in 1659, the residents of Beverwi
(van der Donck 2008:103). The racialized ratio- jck built a palisade around their village to guard nale present in his use of the term wilden (Dutch "against a sudden incursion of Barbarians" (O' for "savage" or "wild men") is clear: Callaghan 1868:385). This palisade inculcated a
symbolic meaning that was embedded within its function: it "confirmed that Beverwijck was in
creasingly becoming a place with its own
, , , , . identity—for some, perhaps, a true'Dutch'home the recognition of landed property, they devi- ,
r . . .. , base . . . [one m which] arriving new settlers ota en rot" Trnm tho íronoro I oiiío r h it rhoi ; mov u
First, on account of religion, because they have
none or so little as to be virtually in a state of
nature. Second, as regards to marriage and in
[were] now separated from the natives" (Venema
2003:95). The palisade also reinforced attitudes about land use that mirrored those prevalent in the
Netherlands (Merwick 1980:66). The separation enforced by the construction of the palisade was
ate so far from the general laws that they may well be called wilden, because they act in those
matters almost at wil 1. Third, as the Christians,
to set themselves apart, give foreign nations
the names of Turks or Mamelukes or barbar
ians, since the term heathen is too general and . , , , . , , . ... , , , , ... ., entirely homologous with the separation enforced little used abroad, they did not wish to include , . , , , , . . . ... ., by the European ceramics and glass: both rein
the American natives in that term either. Sim- / • , , . ... ... forced the pan-national concept of Eurocentrism
llarly, the terms black and white are custom- . f . , , , . . . , that existed outside and above nation-state pnde.
ary among those who have business overseas, _ ...... , . j* , • So, while historians have generally viewed to distinguish the Negroes from our and sim- , ^ ,
J ,
., . , „ ., . , the Dutch to have been more benevolent than the liar nations, but neither of those names quite _ ,. . . , ,. . , . .
,,,A , , , , .. English in dealing with their Native allies, the fitted the Americans, who tend toward the olive XT . , ... , . . „ ,
, j, , „ Netherlanders did not act altruistically because, colored [van der Donck 2008:75], ... , ^ .. , ,
J
just like the English, they, too, were Eurocentric.
This quote reveals that "by calling the Indians As Eurocentrists, the Dutch required its agents to wild men, the Dutch maintained an ambiguous obtain legal title to the land they occupied so that
description of them which suggested that they they could obtain full legal rights by contract
were not quite human, but neither were they un- (Jennings 1988:14). The continuation of the
questionably animals" (Otto 1995:98). story begun by the embryonic expression of Eu Such views, rooted in Eurocentric attitudes, rocentrism in the New World has been cogently
necessarily created tensions. On January 12,1630, summarized:
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Orser] AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF EUROCENTRISM 749
Colonization by the Dutch and land sale by the Consciously adopting socio-structural fram
Mahican slowly started after 1630, receiving ing allows archaeologists to conceptualize Euro
impetus only in the last decades of the seven- centrism as one force in modern life that has sub
teenth century. The colonists along the Hud- stantial, dialectically relevant consequences for its
son River appear to have preferred the Indian advocates and its victims. The understanding of
garden lands for their farms. Together with the Eurocentrism by colonizing Europeans united the
quest for furbearers in more distant areas, this disparate programs of the individual nation-states
resulted in the slow removal of the Mahican into an overarching principle of post-Enlighten
away from the Hudson River to more remote ment thought. Despite each nation's jingoistic at
corners of their territory" [Brasser 1978:203, titudes, desires, and plans—and frequent inter
emphasis added], cultural wars—most Europeans simply accepted
their collective supremacy over the world's non
Conclusion European peoples. At the same time, the colonial
agents of the Netherlands, England, Spain, It remains true that one of the most important and France, and all the other superpowers that have
yet challenging tasks of historical archaeology is grown to power since about 1500 enacted their to give voice to the voiceless, to represent ar- nationally specific Eurocentrisms. The originality chaeologically all those people who have been si- of post-Columbian Eurocentrism—unlike the uni lenced by the powerful (Orser 1996:160-182). versality of ethnocentrism—is that it acquired a Historical archaeologists have been adept at terrible power when combined with colonialism,
preparing monographs that outline the ways in capitalism, and racialization. Each force fed off which excavation has illuminated past life in myr- the others and intersected in complex, histori iad sociohistorical settings. A central task of mod- cally significant way s. ern-world (historical) archaeology is to use ar- The Dutch in the Upper Hudson Valley acted
chaeology to listen to the voiceless (as historical like colonial Europeans elsewhere in the world. In
archaeologists), while simultaneously illuminât- stead of constructing permanent settlements that
ing the forces that explain why the voiceless have conformed to the realities of local environments, been silenced in the first place (as modern-world they built structures in villages that were European archaeologists). Modern-world (historical) ar- in design and plan. The similarity between Fort
chaeologists do not simply use Eurocentism as a Orange in New Netherland and Forte Oranje in
pejorative indictment but rather embrace the view Brazil alone substantiates the urge to re-create
that powerlessness in the past must be thoroughly Europe in the non-European world. Further ho
investigated as part of the postcolonial project to mology is indicated in the Dutch desire to import help comprehend powerlessness in the present, heavy, costly objects into their colonial outposts as
Rather than to rehabilitate the telling of history, expressions of Eurocentrism with a Dutch flavor,
ignoring the reasons for the silences ultimately All archaeologists, regardless of area of ex
creates new and perhaps even more dangerous si- pertise, know the terrible toll experienced by in
lences. By failing to acknowledge domination, digenous peoples when foreigners from Europe oppression, and bigotry, archaeologists run the invaded their native territories seeking land and
risk of alienating themselves from the peoples wealth. But it is the commonness of modernity's
whose history they investigate. meta-forces that is most poignant. Eurocentrism,
Modem-world (historical) archaeology openly capitalism, colonialism, and racialization are such
accepts the significance of colonialism, racial- a strong part of the world's collective history that
ization, capitalism, and Eurocentrism as primary, archaeologists may tend to overlook them, caus
powerful meta-forces that operate in the post- ing them to become naturalized and thus beyond
Columbian world. The modem-world (historical) the realm of analysis. A conscientious archaeol
archaeologists' critiques of these forces are de- ogy dedicated to decolonizing anthropology can
signed to destroy the artificiality of the local- not treat Eurocentrism strictly as a contemporary
global dichotomy by overtly employing multi- perspective intellectually extracted from its his
frame analysis. tory. Such an archaeology must completely reject
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
750 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 4,2012
Eurocentric analysis as it simultaneously argues
that ignoring the histories, effects, and lasting
implications of Eurocentrism naturalizes its ma
terial manifestations and masks its tenacious so
ciocultural consequences, thereby minimizing the
brutality that often accompanied its practice
throughout the world.
Acknowledgments. The ideas expressed in this paper have
evolved over several years and have benefitted from the works
and comments of scholars and friends too numerous to men
tion. The final revisions were completed during a two-month
stay in the Department of Anthropology and Archaeology at
the University of Otago, New Zealand. 1 wish to thank Ian
Smith, Angela Middleton, and everyone in the department who
made my stay productive and memorable. I also wish to ac
knowledge the careful reading and fine suggestions offered by Elizabeth Scott, Janice Orser, and the four reviewers. Rani
Alexander very kindly translated my abstract into Spanish and
I deeply appreciate her assistance. Of course, the responsibil
ity for the final product rests solely with me.
References Cited
Abernethy, David B. 2000 The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European
Overseas Empires, 1415-1980. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Ames, Kenneth M. 1991 The Archaeology of the Longue Durée: Temporal and
Spatial Scale in the Evolution of Social Complexity on the Southern Northwest Coast. Antiquity 65:935-945.
Amin, Samir 1989 Eurocentrism. Translated by Russell Moore. Month
ly Review Press, New York.
Arrighi, Giovanni 2010 The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the
Origins of Our Times. Verso, London. Asante, Molefi Kete
1999 The Painful Demise of Eurocentrism: An Afrocentric Response to Critics. Africa World Press, Trenton, New Jer
sey. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin
1998 Key Concepts in Post-Colonial Studies. Routledge, Lon don.
Baart, Jan 1987 Dutch Material Civilization: Daily Life Between
1650-1776, Evidence from Archaeology. In New World Dutch Studies: Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial Amer
ica, 1609-1776, edited by Roderic H. Blackburn and Nan
cy A. Kelley, pp. 1-11. Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany.
Balibar, Etienne 1994 Masses, Classes, Ideas: Studies on Politics and Phi
losophy Before and After Marx. Translated by James Swen son. Routledge, London.
2004 We, The People of Europe: Reflections on Transnational
Citizenship. Translated by James Swenson. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Bagchi, Amiya Kumar
2005 Perilous Passage: Mankind and the Global Ascendancy of Capital. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
Bentham, Jeremy ] 830 Emancipate Your Colonies! Addressed to the Nation
al Convention of France, A" 1793, Shewing the Useless ness and Mischievousness of Distant Dependencies to an
European State. Robert Heward, London.
Bintliff, John (editor) 1991 The Anmles School and Archaeology. New York Uni
versity Press, New York.
Blaut, J.M.
1993 The Colonizer's Model of the World: Geographical Dif
fitsionism and Eurocentric History. Guilford, New York.
2000 Eight Eurocentric Historians. Guilford, New York.
Borschberg, Peter 1999 Hugo Grotius, East India Trade, and the King of Jo
hor. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 30:225-248.
Bourdieu, Pierre 2003 Firing Back: Against the Tyranny of the Market 2. Trans
lated by Loïc Wacquant. New Press, New York.
Bourgois, Phillippe 1997 Confronting the Ethics of Ethnography: Lessons
from Fieldwork in Central America. In Decolonizing An
thropology: Moving Further toward an Anthropology for Liberation, edited by Faye V. Harrison, pp. 111-127. Amer ican Anthropological Association, Washington, DC.
Boxer, C. R. 1973 The Dutch Seaborne Empire, 1600-1800. Penguin, Lon
don.
Bradley, James W. 2005 Visualizing Arent van Curler: A Biographical and Ar
chaeological View, de Halve Maen 77:3-14. 2007 Before Albany: An Archaeology of Native-Dutch Re
lations in the Capital Region, 1600-1664. University of the
State of New York, State Education Department, Albany. Brantlinger, Patrick
2003 Dark Vanishings: Discourse on the Extinction of Prim itive Races, 1800-1930. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Brasser, T. J.
1978 Mahican. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 198-212. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Insti
tution, Washington, D.C.
Braudel, Femand 1966 La Méditerranée et al Monde Méditerranéen a
L'époch de Phillippe 7/(2nd edition). Librairie Armand Col
in, Paris, 1973 Capitalism and Material Life, 1400-1800. Translat
ed by Miriam Kochan. Harper and Row, New York. 1977 Afterthoughts on Material Civilization and Capitalism.
Translated by Patricia M. Ranum. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Brook, Timothy 2008 Vermeer i Hat: The Seventeenth Century and the Dawn
of the Global World. Profile, London.
Buckle, Stephen 1991 Natural Law and the Theory of Property: Grotius to
Hume. Clarendon, Oxford.
Burke, Thomas E.
1991 The New Netherland Fur Trade, 1657-1661 : Response to Crisis, in A Beautiful and Fruitful Place: SelectedRens
selaerswijck Seminar Papers, edited by Nancy Anne Mc Clure Zeller, pp. 283-291. New Netherland Project, New York State Library, Albany.
Cameron, Catherine M. 2011 Captives and Culture Change: Implications for Ar
chaeology. Current Anthropology 52:169-209.
Cantwell, Anne-Marie 2008 The Middle Ground that Once Lay "Under the Blue
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Orser] AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF EUROCENTRISM 751
Canopy of Heaven": The Munsee and the Dutch in the Sev enteenth Century. In From De Halve Maen to KLM: 400 Years of Dutch-American Exchange, edited by Margriet Bruijn Lacy, Charles Gehring, and Jenneke Oosterhoff, pp. 119-133. Nodus, Mlinster.
Césaire, Aimé 2000 Discourse on Colonialism. Monthly Review Press, New
York.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh 1992 Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who
Speaks for "Indian" Pasts? Representations 37:1-26. 2000 Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and His
torical Difference. New ed. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
2002 Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Sub altern Studies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Cobley.Alan Gregor 1990 Class and Consciousness: The Black Petty Bourgeoisie
in South Africa. 1924 to 1950. Greenwood, New York.
Condon, Thomas J.
1968 New York Beginnings: The Commercial Origins of New Netherland. New York University Press, New York.
Colley, Linda
2004 Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600-1850.
Anchor, New York.
Cooper, Frederick, and Ann Laura Stoler 1997 Preface. In Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in
a Bourgeois World, edited by Frederick Cooper and Ann Laura Stoler, pp. vii-x. University of California Press, Berke
ley. Crossley, Pamela Kyle
2008 What Is Global History? Polity, Cambridge. Crumley, Carole L., and William H. Marquardt (editors)
1987 Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in His
torical Perspective. Academic Press, San Diego. Dash. Mike
1999 Tulipomania: The Story of the World's Most Coveted
Flower and the Extraordinary Passions it Aroused. Three
Rivers Press, New York.
Dawdy, Shannon Lee 2010 Clockpunk Anthropology and the Ruins of Moderni
ty. Current Anthropology 51:761-793.
Deetz, James
1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Ear
ly American Life. Anchor Press, Garden City, New York. 1991 Introduction: Archaeological Evidence of Sixteenth
and Seventeenth-Century Encounters. In Historical Ar
chaeology in Global Perspective, edited by Lisa Falk, pp. 1-9. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Dietler, Michael 2010 Archaeologies of Colonialism: Consumption, Entan
glement, and Violence in Ancient Mediterranean France.
University of California Press, Berkeley. Dirlik, Arif
1999 Is There History After Eurocentrism?: Globalism, Post
colonialism, and the Disavowal of History. Cultural Cri
tique 42:1-34.
Duffy, Christopher 2006 Fire and Stone: The Science of Fortress Warfare,
1660-1860. Castle, Edison, NJ.
Duchesne, Ricardo 2001-2002 Between Sinocentrism and Eurocentrism: Debating
Andre Gunder Frank's Re-Orient: Global Economy in the
Asian Age. Science and Society 65:428-463.
Dunn, Shirley W. 1994 The Mohicans and Their Land, 1609-1730. Purple
Mountain Press, Fleischmans, New York.
Dussel, Enrique 1993 Eurocentrism and Modernity. Boundary 2 20:65-76.
Dyson, Stephen L. (editor) 1985 Comparative Studies in the Archaeology of Colonialism.
BAR International Series 233. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Eagleton, Terry 1996 The Illusions of Postmodernism. Blackwell, Oxford.
Englund, Harri, and James Leach 2000 Ethnography and the Meta-Narratives of Modernity.
Current Anthropology 41:225-248.
Ephraim, Charles Wm.
2003 The Pathology of Eurocentrism: The Burden and Re
sponsibilities of Being Black. Africa World Press, Trenton, New Jersey.
Falk, Lisa (editor) 1991 Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective. Smith
sonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Fanon, Frantz 1963 The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, New York.
Ferris, Neal 2009 The Archaeology of Native-Lived Colonialism: Chal
lenging History in the Great Lakes. University of Arizona
Press, Tucson.
Fisher, Charles L. 2008 Archaeological Collections from New Netherland at
the New York State Museum. In From De Halve Maen to KLM: 400 Years of Dutch-American Exchange, edited by
Margriet Bruijn Lacy, Charles Gehring, and Jenneke
Oosterhoff, pp. 11-23. Nodus, Miinster.
Frank, Andre Gunder 1998 ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. University
of California Press, Berkeley. Funari, Pedro Paulo A., and Nanci Vieira de Oliveira
2009 The Archaeology of Conflict in Brazil. In Memories
from Darkness: Archaeology of Repression and Resistance in Latin America, edited by Pedro Funari, Andrés Zarankin, and Melisa Salerno, pp. 25—31. Springer, New York.
Funari, Pedro Paulo, Siân Jones, and Martin Hall
1999 Introduction: Archaeology in History. In Historical Ar
chaeology: Back from the Edge, edited by Pedro Paulo A.
Funari, Martin Hall, and Siân Jones, pp. 1-20. Routledge, London.
Garber, Peter M. 1989 Tulipmania. Journal of Political Economy 97:535—560.
Gerbi, Antonello 1973 The Dispute of the New World: A History of a
Polemic, 1750-1900. Translated by Jeremy Moyle. Uni
versity of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Goody, Jack 2006 The Theft of History. Cambridge University Press, Cam
bridge. Gosden, Chris
2004 Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Context from 5000 BC to the Present. Cambridge University Press, Cam
bridge. Haakonssen, Knud
1996 Natural Law and Moral Philosophy: From Grotius to
the Scottish Enlightenment. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. Haglund, William D., Melissa Connor, and Douglas D. Scott
2001 The Archaeology of Contemporary Mass Graves. His
torical Archaeology 35(l):57-69. Hall, Martin
2000 Archaeology and the Modern World: Colonial Tran
scripts in South Africa and the Chesapeake. Routledge, Lon
don.
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
752 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 4, 2012
Hall, Martin, and Stephen W. Silliman 2006 Introduction: Archaeology of the Modern World. In His
torical Archaeology, edited by Martin Hall and Stephen W.
Silliman, pp. 1-19. Blackwell, Maiden, Massachusetts.
Harding. Jan 2005 Rethinking the Great Divide: Long-Term Structural His
tory and the Temporality of Event. Norwegian Archaeo
logical Review 38:88-101.
Hart, Jonathan 2008 Empires and Colonies. Polity, Cambridge.
Hodgen, Margaret T. 1971 Early Anthropology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Huey, Paul R.
1987 Archaeological Evidence of Dutch Wooden Cellars and Perishable Wooden Structures at Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Sites in the Upper Hudson Valley. In New World Dutch Studies: Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial Amer
ica, 1609-1776, edited by Roderic H. Blackburn and Nan
cy A. Kelley, pp. 13-35. Albany Institute of History and
Art, Albany. 1988 Aspects of Continuity and Change in Colonial Dutch
Material Culture at Fort Orange, 1624-1664. Ph.D. dis sertation , Department of American Civilization, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
1991 The Dutch at Fort Orange. In Historical Archaeolo
gy in Global Perspective, edited by Lisa Falk, pp. 21-67. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1996 A Short History of Cuyper Island, Towns of East Green bush and Schodack, New York, and Its Relation to Dutch and Mahican Culture Contact. Journal of Middle Atlantic
Archaeology 12:127-142. 1998a Fort Orange Archaeological Site National Historic
Landmark. New York State Archaeological Association Bul letin 114:12-23.
1998b Schuyler Flatts Archaeological District National Historic Landmark. New York State Archaeological Asso ciation Bulletin 114:24-31.
2010 Dutch Colonial Forts in New Netherland. In First Forts:
Essays on the Archaeology of Proto-Colonial Fortifications, edited by Eric Klingelhofer, pp. 139-165. Brill, Leiden.
Hughes, S. S. 1992 Beyond Eurocentrism: Developing World Women's
Studies. Feminist Studies 18:389-404.
Irwin, Douglas A. 1991 Mercantilism as Strategic Trade Policy: The Anglo
Dutch Rivalry for the East India Trade. Journal of Politi cal Economy 99:1296-1314.
Jacobs,Jaap 2005 New Netherland: A Dutch Colony in Seventeenth-Cen
tury America. Brill, Leiden. 2009 The Colony of New Netherland: A Dutch Settlement in
Seventeenth-Century America. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Jameson, J. Franklin (editor) 1909 Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664. Charles
Scribner's Sons, New York.
Jasanoff, Maya 2011 Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary
War. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Jayawardena, V. Kumari 1974 Origins of the Left Movement in Sri Lanka. Social Sci
entist 2(6-7):3-28. Jennings, Francis
1976 The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest. W. W. Norton, New York.
1988 Dutch and Swedish Indian Policies. In History of In
dian-White Relations, edited by Wilcomb E. Washburn, pp. 13-19. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 4, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Insti
tution, Washington, DC.
Johns, Sheridan 1975 The Comintern, South Africa, and the Black Diaspo
ra. The Review of Politics 37:200-234.
Johnson, Matthew 2006 The Tide Reversed: Prospects and Potentials for a Post
colonial Archaeology of Europe. In Historical Archaeol
ogy, edited by Martin Hall and Stephen W. Silliman, pp. 313-331. Blackwell, Maiden, Massachusetts.
Johnson, Samuel 1760 A Dictionary of the English Language. 2nd ed. Knap
ton, Hitch, Hawes, Millar,Strahan, Dodsley, and Longman, London.
Jordan, Kurt A. 2008 The Seneca Restoration, 1715-1754: An Iroquois Lo
cal Political Economy. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Kahn, Joel S. 2001 Anthropology and Modernity. Current Anthropology
42:651-680.
Kanth, Rajani Kannepalli 2005 Against Eurocentrism: A Transcendant Critique of Mod
ernist Science, Society, and Morals: A Discursus on Hu man Emancipation. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Keene, Edward 2002 Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism,
and Order in World Politics. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. Kohl, Philip L.
2008 Shared Social Fields: Evolutionary Convergence in
Prehistory and Contemporary Practice. American An
thropologist 110:495-506.
Lambropoulos, Vassilis 1993 The Rise of Eurocentrism: Anatomy of Interpretation.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Landes, David 1998 The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So
Rich and Some So Poor. Norton, New York.
Lawrence, Susan, and Nick Shepherd 2006 Historical Archaeology and Colonialism. In The
Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology, edited
by Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry, pp. 69-86. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
I-efebvre, Henri 1991 The Production of Space. Translated by Donald
Nicholson-Smith. Blackwell, Oxford.
Lenin, V.I. 1970 Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: A
Popular Outline. Foreign Language Press, Peking. Liebmann, Matthew, and Melissa S. Murphy (editors)
2010 Enduring Conquests: Rethinking the Archaeology of Resistance to Spanish Colonialism in the Americas. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.
Lightfoot, Kent G. 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redifining the Relationship
between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American
Antiquity 60:199-217.
Lightfoot, Kent G., Antoinette Martinez, and Ann M. Schiff 1998 Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic So
cial Settings: An Archaeological Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California. American An
tiquity 63:199-222.
Linebaugh, Peter, and Marcus Rediker 2000 The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Com
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Orser] AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF EUROCENTRISM 753
moners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary At lantic. Beacon Press, Boston.
Little, Barbara J. 1994 People With History: An Update on Historical Ar
chaeology in the United States. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:5^10.
Little, Barbara J., and Paul Shackel 1989 Scales in Historical Archaeology: An Archaeology of
Colonial Anglo-America. Antiquity 63:495-509.
Lucas, Gavin 2006 An Archaeology of Colonial Identity: Power and Ma
terial Culture in the Dwars Valley, South Africa. Springer, New York.
Lydon,Jane 2009 Fantastic Dreaming: The Archaeology of an Aborig
inal Mission. AltaMira, Lanham, Maryland. Lydon, Jane, and Uzma Z. Rizvi (editors)
2010 Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology. Ixft Coast
Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Lyons, Claire L„ and John K. Papadopoulos (editors) 2002 The Archaeology of Colonialism. Getty, Los Angeles.
McGerr, Michael 1991 The Price of the "New Transnational History." Amer
ican Historical Review 96:1056-1067.
Marks, Robert B. 2002 The Origins of the Modern World: A Global and Eco
logical Narrative. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham,
Maryland. Marquardt, William H.
1992 Dialectical Archaeology. In Archaeological Method and
Theory, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, Vol. 4,pp. 101-140.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Marx, Karl 1967 Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Volume 1.
International, New York. 1970 A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.
Translated by Maurice Dobb. International, New York.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels 1970 The German Ideology: Part One. Edited by C. J.Arthur.
International. New York.
Matthews, Christopher N. 2007 History to Prehistory: An Archaeology of Being Indian.
Archaeologies 3:271-295.
Menezes, José Luiz Mota, and Maria do Rosário Rosa Rodrigues 1986 Fortificaçôes Portuguesas no Nordeste de Brasil: Sécu
los XVI. XVII e XVIII. Pool Editorial, Recife.
Merwick, Donna 1980 Dutch Townsmen and Land Use: A Spatial Perspec
tive on Seventeenth-Century Albany, New York. William
and Mary Quarterly 37:53-78. 1990 Possessing Albany, 1630-1710: The Dutch and Eng
lish Experiences. Cambridge University Press, Cam
bridge. 2006 The Shame and the Sorrow: Dutch-Amerindian En
counters in New Netherland. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Meskell, Lynn, and Robert W. Preucel
2004 Identities. In A Companion to Social Archaeology, edit
ed by Lynn Meskell and Robert W. Preucel, pp. 121-141.
Blackwell, Maiden, Massachusetts.
Metcalf, Peter 2010 The Life of the Longhouse: An Archaeology of Ethnicity.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Middleton, Angela
2008 Te Puna, A New Zealand Mission Station: Historical
Archaeology in New Zealand. Springer, New York.
Miroff, Laurie E., and Timothy D. Knapp (editors) 2009 Iroquoian Archaeology and Analytic Scale. University
of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Moody, Kevin L. 2002 Traders or Traitors: Illicit Trade at Fort Orange in the
17th Century. In On the Outside Looking In: Four Centuries
of Change at 625 Broadway, Archaeology at the DEC Head
quarters, 625 Broadway, Albany, New York, pp. 3.1-3.26.
Hartgen Archaeological Associates, Rensselaer, New York.
2003 Traders or Traitors: Illicit Trade at Fort Orange in the Seventeenth Century. In People, Places, and Material
Things: Historical Archaeology of Albany, New York, edit
ed by Charles L. Fisher, pp. 25-38. New York State Mu seum Bulletin 499, New York State Education Department, Albany.
2005 Quackenbush Square House. In Beyond the North
Gate: Archaeology on the Outskirts of Colonial Albany, Archaeological Data Retrieval, Quackenbush Square Parking Facility, Broadway, Albany, New York, pp. 89-160. Hartgen Archaeological Associates, Rensselaer, New York.
Mrozowski, Stephen A. 2010 New and Forgotten Paradigms: The Environment and
Economics in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archae
ology 44(3):177-127.
Nassaney, Michael S., and Kenneth E. Sassaman (editors) 1995 Native American Interactions: Multiscalar Analysis and
Interpretation in the Eastern Woodlands. University of Ten nessee Press, Knoxville.
Nissenson, S. C. 1937 The Patroon's Domain. Columbia University Press,
New York.
O'Callaghan, E. B. 1868 Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 1638-1674.
Weed, Parsons, Albany. Orser, Charles E., Jr.
1994 Toward a Global Historical Archaeology: An Exam
ple from Brazil. Historical Archaeology 28(1):1—18. 1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World.
Plenum Press, New York. 2004a The Archaeology of Recent History: Historical,
Post-Medieval, and Modem-World. In A Companion to Ar
chaeology, edited by John Bintliff, pp. 272-290. Blackwell, Maiden, Massachusetts.
2004b Historical Archaeology. Prenctice-Hall, Upper Sad
dle River, New Jersey. 2007 The Archaeology of Race and Racialization in Historic
America. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
2010 Twenty-First Century Historical Archaeology. Jour nal of Archaeological Research 18:111-150.
2013 Modem-World Historical Archaeology. In The Oxford
Companion to Historical Archaeology, edited by James
Symonds, Susan Lawrence, and Laurie Wilkie. Oxford Uni
versity Press, Oxford, in press. Otto, Paul Andrew
1995 New Netherland Frontier: Europeans and Native
Americans along the Lower Hudson River, 1524-1664.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Indiana Uni
versity, Bloomington. Parmenter, Jon
2010 The Edge of the Woods: Iroquoia, 1534-1701. Michi
gan State University Press, East Lansing. Patterson, Thomas C.
1997 Inventing Western Civilization. Monthly Review
Press, New York.
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
754 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 4, 2012
Peet, Richard 2005 From Eurocentrism to Americentrism. Antipode
37:936-943.
Pels,Peter 1997 The Anthropology of Colonialism: Culture, History,
and the Emergence of Western Governmentality. AnnuaI Review of Anthropology 26:163-183.
Pilling, Arnold R. 1968 Beginnings. Historical Archaeology 1:1-22.
Pomeranz, Kenneth 2000 The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Mak
ing of the Modern World Economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Prashad, Vijay 2007 The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third
World. New Press, New York.
Quimby, George I. 1939 European Trade Articles as Chronological Indicators
for the Archaeology of the Historic Period in Michigan. Pa
pers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Let
ters 24:25-31. 1966 Indian Culture and European Trade Goods: The Ar
chaeology of the Historic Period in the Western Great Lakes
Region. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Quimby, George, and Alexander Spoehr 1951 Acculturation and Material Culture: I. Fieldiana:An
thropology 36:107-147.
Rabasa, José 1993 Inventing America: Spanish Historiography and the
Formation of Eurocentrism. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman.
Rink, Oliver A. 1986 Holland on the Hudson: An Economic and Social His
tory of Dutch New York. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Robins, Nick 2006 The Corporation that Changed the World: How the East
India Company Shaped the Modern Multinational. Pluto, London.
Rockman, Marcy 2010 New World with a New Sky: Climatic Variability, En
vironmental Expectations, and the Historical Period Col onization of Eastern North America. Historical Archaeol
ogy 44(3):4-20. Rosenau, Pauline Marie
1992 Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, In
roads, and Intrusions. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Rothschild, Nan A. 2003 Colonial Encounters in a Native American Landscape:
The Spanish and Dutch in North America. Smithsonian In
stitution, Washington, D.C.
Rowlands, Michael 1998 The Archaeology of Colonialism. In Social Trans
formations in Archaeology: Global and Local Perspectives, edited by Kristian Kristiansen and Michael Rowlands, pp. 318-323. Routledge, London.
Rye, William Brenchley (editor) 1865 England as Seen by Foreigners in the Days of Eliza
beth and James the First. John Russell Smith, London.
Said, Edward
1993 Culture and Imperialism. Knopf, New York.
Sayyid, S. 2003 A Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and the Emergence
oflslamism. 2nd edition. Zed, London. Scammell, G. V.
1981 The World Encompassed: The First European Mar itime Empires, c. 800-1650. Methuen, London.
Schama, Simon 1987 The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of
Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. Vintage, New York.
Schmidt, Peter R., and Jonathan R. Walz
2007a Re-Presenting African Pasts through Historical Ar
chaeology. American Antiquity 72:53-70.
2007b Silences and Mentions in History Making. Histori
cal Archaeology 41 (4) : 129-146.
Setzler, Frank M.
1943 Archaeological Explorations in the United States, 1930-1942. Acta Americana 1:206-220.
Silliman, Stephen W. 2005 Culture Contact or Colonialism? Challenges in the Ar
chaeology of Native North America. American Antiquity 70:55-74.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai 1999 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous
Peoples. Zed, London.
Smith, Michael E.
1992 Braudel's Temporal Rhythms and Chronology The
ory in Archaeology. In Archaeology, Annales, and Ethno
history, edited by A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 23-34. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
South, Stanley (editor) 1994 Pioneers in Historical Archaeology: Breaking New
Ground. Plenum Press, New York.
Stahl, Ann, Rob Mann, and Diana DiPaolo 2004 Writing for Many: Interdisciplinary Communication,
Constructionism, and the Practices of Writing. Historical
Archaeology 38(2):83—102. Stoler. Ann Laura
1992 Rethinking Colonial Categories: European Commu nities and the Boundaries of Rule. In Colonialism and Cul
ture, edited by Nicholas B. Dirks, pp. 319-352. Universi
ty of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Stoler, Ann Laura, and Frederick Cooper 1997 Between Métropole and Colony: Rethinking a Research
Agenda. In Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bour
geois World, edited by Frederick Cooper and Ann Laura
Stoler, pp. 1-56. University of California Press, Berkeley. Tambiah, Stanley J.
2000 Transnational Movements, Diaspora, and Multiple Modernities. Daedalus 129:163-194.
Trigger, Bruce G. 1971 The Mohawk-Mahican War (1624-28): The Establish
ment of a Pattern. Canadian Historical Review 52:276-286. van der Donck, Andiaen
2008 A Description of New Netherland. Edited by Charles T. Gehring and William A. Stama. Translated by Diederik Willem Goedhuys. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
van Laer, A. J. F. (translator and editor) 1908 Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts: Being the Let
ters ofKiliaen van Rensselaer, 1630-1643, and Other Doc uments Relating to the Colony of Renssalaerswyck. Uni
versity of the State of New York, Albany. Venema, Janny
2003 Beverwijck: A Dutch Village on the American Fron
tier, 1652-1664. State University of New York Press, Al
bany. 2010 Kiliaen van Renssalaer (1586-1643): Designing a New
World. Uitgeverij Verloren, Hilversum. Vernon, Howard
1978 The Dutch, the Indians, and the Fur Trade in the Hud son Valley, 1609-1664. In Neighbors arid Intruders: An Eth nohistorical Exploration of the Indians of Hudson's Riv
er, edited by Laurence M. Hauptman and Jack Campisi, pp. 197-209. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Orser] AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF EUROCENTRISM 755
von Dongen, Alexandra (editor) 1995 One Man's Trash in Another Man's Treasure. Muse
um Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam.
Voss, Barbara L.
2008 Gender, Race, and Labor in the Archaeology of the
Spanish Colonial Americas. Current Anthropology 49:861-893.
Wallerstein, Immanuel
1974 The Modem World-System : Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth
Century. Academic Press, New York.
1979 The Capitalist World-Economy. Cambridge Univer
sity Press, Cambridge. 1980 The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the
Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750.
Academic Press, New York.
2004 World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke Uni
versity Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Walthall, John A. (editor) 1991 French Colonial Archaeology: The Illinois Country and
the Western Great Lakes. University of Illinois Press, Ur
bana.
Walthall, John A., and Thomas E. Emerson (editors) 1992 Calumet and Fleur-de-Lis: Archaeology of Indian and
French Contact in the Midcontinent. Smithsonian Institu
tion Press, Washington, DC.
Weiss, Anja 2006 The Racism of Globalization. In The Globalization of
Racism, edited by Donaldo Macedo and Panayota Gounari,
pp. 128-147. Paradigm, Boulder, Colorado.
Wilcoxen, Charlotte 1984 Seventeenth-Century Albany: A Dutch Profile. 2nd ed.
Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany.
1999 Seventeenth-Century Portuguese Faiança and Its Presence in Colonial America. Northeast Historical Ar
chaeology 28:1-20.
Wilentz, Sean
1984 Against Exceptionalism: Class Consciousness and the American Labor Movement, 1790-1920. International La bor and Working Class History 26:1-24.
Wolf, Eric R.
1982 Europe and the People without History. University of
California Press, Berkeley. 1999 Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Cri
sis. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Wong, Bin
2000 China Transformed: Historical Change and the Lim
its of European Experience. Cornell University Press, Itha
ca, New York.
Young, Robert J. C. 1995 Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and
Race. Routledge, London.
2001 Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Black
well, Oxford.
Zizek, Slavoj 1998 A Leftist Plea for "Eurocentrism." Critical Inquiry
24:988-1009.
Zurndofer, Harriet T.
1997 China and "Modernity": The Uses of the Study of Chi
nese History in the Past and the Present. Journal of the Eco
nomic and Social History of the Orient 40:461-485.
Submitted June 3, 2011; Revised October 12, 2011:
Accepted November 1, 2011.
This content downloaded from 128.227.158.226 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:18:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions