Finding Mid-19Th Century Native Settlements: Cartographic and Archaeological Evidence from Central California

Journal of Field Archaeology ISSN: 0093-4690 (Print) 2042-4582 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjfa20 Finding Mid-19th Century Native Settlements: Cartographic and Archaeological Evidence from Central California Lee M. Panich, Tsim D. Schneider & R. Scott Byram To cite this article: Lee M. Panich, Tsim D. Schneider & R. Scott Byram (2018) Finding Mid-19th Century Native Settlements: Cartographic and Archaeological Evidence from Central California, Journal of Field Archaeology, 43:2, 152-165, DOI: 10.1080/00934690.2017.1416849 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2017.1416849 Published online: 15 Jan 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 417 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjfa20 JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY, 2018 VOL. 43, NO. 2, 152–165 https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2017.1416849 Finding Mid-19th Century Native Settlements: Cartographic and Archaeological Evidence from Central California Lee M. Panicha, Tsim D. Schneiderb and R. Scott Byramc aSanta Clara University, Santa Clara, CA; bUniversity of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA; cUniversity of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Historical maps have the potential to aid archaeological investigations into the persistence of Native Historical maps; Mexican land American settlements during the mid-19th century, a time when many Native communities disappear grants; General Land Office; from archaeological view. Focusing on Tomales Bay in central California, we evaluate the usefulness of United States Coast Survey; historical maps as a way to discover and interpret archaeological deposits dating to the period, with indigenous persistence the aim of better understanding indigenous patterns of residence at the transition from missionary to settler colonialism. In particular, we focus on diseños and plats created to document Mexican-era land grants as well as early maps produced by the General Land Office and United States Coast Survey. Although we note inconsistencies regarding the inclusion of indigenous settlements on historical maps, our case study offers an example of how archaeologists can employ historical maps and targeted archaeological ground-truthing to discover sites that are poorly represented in the historical and archaeological records. Introduction maps for special projects, county maps and atlases, and As research on colonial entanglements expands both tem- reconstructed maps” (1988: 92). Many archaeologists regu- porally and spatially, archaeologists face the challenge of dis- larly consult historical maps to analyze cultural landscapes covering and identifying sites located beyond Euroamerican and settlement patterns, to document diachronic landscape institutions or settlements. Recently, this topic has been modifications, to identify site occupants, and simply to locate addressed in contexts ranging from maroon communities liv- sites in space (Costello et al. 2008; Lape 2002; Mann 2012; ing in marginal environments (Sayers 2014) to indigenous Miller 1988; Winston-Gregson 1985). sites of refuge (Holly 2008) to relatively unobtrusive sites Yet the information provided by historical maps cannot be used by highly mobile Native American groups (Seymour taken at face value. For one, not all cultural features on his- 2010). In central California, conventional wisdom holds torical maps were grounded in reality, as demonstrated by that Spanish colonization of the region led to a total collapse mid-19th century maps showing multiple speculative plats of indigenous populations outside of a handful of missions of nonexistent townsites in California (Purser and Shaver founded by the Franciscan order (Milliken 1995). Recently, 2008). Perhaps more challenging are the socio-politics of however, archaeologists have directed attention to places mapmaking (Harley 1989). Byrne (2003), for example, where Native Californians lived during and after the initial demonstrates that colonial cadastral mapping projects were colonization of the region by the Spanish. This work includes effectively blind—if not openly hostile—to continuing indi- careful examination of the archaeological record of colonial genous use of the landscape in Australia, whereas studies in missions for clues to outside connections (Arkush 2011; western North America have shown how colonial maps Panich 2016), the discovery of autonomous villages and serve to support particular visions of the landscape while sim- refuge sites in the course of cultural resource management ultaneously undermining other, typically indigenous, claims projects (Reddy 2015) and regional surveys (Bernard et al. of residency (Brealey 1995; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Hill 2014), and the reanalysis of colonial documents (Farris 2004; Oliver 2011). As stressed by Seasholes (1988: 93), 2014; Panich 2015; T. D. Schneider 2015a). Here, we assess then, archaeologists must evaluate historical maps in the the potential of historical maps to aid in our understanding same way that they would any historical document, taking of shifting patterns of indigenous residence through the mis- into account what is known about the mapmaker, the sion era (ca. 1769–1840s) and into the middle decades of mid- map’s purpose, and its intended audience. 19th century, when the region was transformed once again by In sum, different cartographic technologies and agendas American settler colonialism. produce a range of maps and associated documents, some Historical maps, ranging from rural cadastral surveys of which will be more useful than others for archaeologists (intended to record property boundaries) to urban fire insur- interested in post-contact indigenous residence. Native ance maps, are an integral part of the archaeologist’s toolkit. people, for their part, often used the landscape in ways that Seasholes, for example, gives an overview of the range of his- conflicted not only with Euroamerican values but also with torical maps available to historical archaeologists working in the synchronic and totalizing view of colonial cartography and around Boston, Massachusetts, including “eighteenth- (Oliver 2010: 79). Such representations, however, remain an and nineteenth-century maps showing structures, directory important window into the past, particularly for regions in maps, atlas maps, bird’s eye views, plat plans, utility maps, which the persistence of Native groups is not well CONTACT Lee M. Panich [email protected] Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California, USA © Trustees of Boston University 2018 JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 153 documented historically or archaeologically. Historical maps, investigations, was a complete abandonment of Native vil- then, can be used in combination with archaeological, archi- lages. As summarized by Milliken, “all tribal lands within val, and ethnographic evidence to target under-documented 40 miles to the north of San Francisco Bay and 80 miles to sites and to understand the complexity of early historical the east were empty of villages” by the 1830s (1995: 220). landscapes. Given such statements, it is not surprising that archaeologists rarely identify mid-19th century Native American sites in the field. Expanding the Archaeology of Mid-19th Century Here, we examine how historical maps from Tomales Bay, Central California in central California, can help recalibrate expectations about Archaeologists working in central California have offered mid-19th century Native sites—both where they are located insights into how indigenous people dealt with Euroamerican and what they might look like archaeologically. In many colonialism. Much of this research has focused on the region’s cases, maps offer invaluable glimpses of how Native people numerous Spanish colonial missions (Allen 1998; Arkush used the landscape during transitional times and places, par- 2011; Mendoza 2014a; Panich et al. 2014), the Russian mer- ticularly when such sites are relatively unobtrusive or masked cantile outpost at Colony Ross (Lightfoot 2005), and Native by the presence of mass-produced material culture. Located villages located away from colonial settlements (T. D. Schnei- in west Marin County (FIGURE 1), Tomales Bay was inhabited der 2015b). With some notable exceptions (Silliman 2004), by indigenous Coast Miwok people before and during Span- relatively few archaeological studies have explicitly con- ish missionization, and it remained a significant area of con- sidered places occupied by Native Californians after the secu- tinuity and adjustment in the decades afterward. larization of the missions during the 1830s–1840s and the closing of Colony Ross in 1841. Native people living in central Maps from Mid-19th Century California California effectively disappear from archaeological view during the mid-19th century (Lightfoot 2006: 282). In this section, we review some of the most salient map The near-invisibility of Native Californians in the archae- types for our study area and time period: diseños associated ology of mid-19th century California has three interrelated with Mexican-era land grants; American-period plats causes. First, much of the early historical archaeological (cadastral maps to demarcate land holdings), including research in the region was rooted in acculturation frame- those created by the General Land Office (GLO); and works that assumed fundamental and lasting cultural change

Load more