Mission Archaeology Author(S): Elizabeth Graham Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol

Mission Archaeology Author(s): Elizabeth Graham Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 27 (1998), pp. 25-62 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223362 Accessed: 03-04-2018 19:11 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223362?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. 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]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology This content downloaded from 128.227.117.138 on Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:11:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1998. 27:25-62 Copyright 1998 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved MISSION ARCHAEOLOGY Elizabeth Graham Department of Anthropology, York University, North York, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3; e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] KEY WORDS: historical archaeology, Spanish borderlands, conversion, religion, Maya ABSTRACT "Mission archaeology" is a novel conjunction of terms devised to focus at- tention on an archaeology of mission sites, and thereby on the light that can be shed on the process of the Christianization of the Americas by examining the material culture of missions. Discussion centers on a summary of mission research in the Spanish-occupied territories of North America and Mayan Mesoamerica. I then draw conclusions from these data, and from anthropological and historical analyses of mission encounters, to suggest where mission studies should be headed and the role that archaeology can play in expanding our knowledge of the mission transformation. GUIDING QUESTIONS What Is Mission Archaeology? "Mission archaeology" is not a recognized subfield of anthropology. In order to synthesize and assess its practices and progress, first I ascribe meaning to mission archaeology, and second, I explain how archaeology has contributed to a general understanding of the role that Christian missions and missionaries played in the European displacement of indigenous peoples in the Americas. DEFINING MISSION The colonizing process, the spread of the Christian faith, and the enculturation of the Indians are common to all missionizing efforts, and this commonality at first led me to consider a rather tight definition of missions: 25 0084-6570/98/101 5-0025$08.00 This content downloaded from 128.227.117.138 on Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:11:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 26 GRAHAM A mission is an ecclesiastical unit of area of sufficient size, within which all activities (such as construction, farming, handicrafts, herding, recreation, etc) are administered by a ministry commissioned by, and dependent upon, a larger religious organization for direction or financial support. (Snow 1967:59) Although this definition has the advantage of situating missions globally, it privileges a mission ideal only nearly achieved in Alta California (Jackson 1994:37) and Paraguay (Whigham 1995:157-159), and it represents only a facet of the mission experience. In-depth knowledge is better achieved by broad research that extends beyond the ideal mission community to communities with only visita churches; to mission communities with limited resources and permeable boundaries; to the full range of Indian settlements, both Chris- tian and non-Christian; and to colonial communities as well, with the understanding that local conditions are critical in explaining the diversity of mission encounters. DEFINING ARCHAEOLOGY Having thus defined the mission component of mission archaeology, what about the archaeology component? Does it refer only to excavations, or to studies of material culture as well? Is all historical or ethnohistorical research relevant, or only that bearing on the location of the mission site? I take the broadest view possible and consider a range of research that not only helps to locate and excavate mission sites, but also illuminates the historical, demographic, or sociocultural context of mission encounters. What Areas Will Be Covered, and What Is the Rationale for Selection? My coverage is spotty and perforce dominated by North American material, where so much mission research has been carried out and published. I consider a limited range of work on missions and church-period sites carried out in Mexico, but much of it, like my own work in Belize, is relatively recent or ad- junct to architectural survey or to prehistoric work, leaving full excavation re- ports and syntheses yet unpublished. I do not explore the Caribbean encounter or South America. I hope, however, that the conclusions I draw from a review of mission archaeology will be useful to scholars in other areas. For example, a comparison of the North American-Mesoamerican missionizing experiences suggests that, for the Spanish church, the conversion of urbanized peoples was logistically and perhaps structurally a less daunting task than the conversion of nonagriculturalists or foragers. Christianity was a religion well rooted in urban traditions, and an outgrowth of societies that were highly specialized and hier- archical (Herrin 1987:20-23; Pagden 1982:21-22). Complex social and eco- nomic structures of Mesoamerica and the Andes could readily be adjusted to support, and be supported by, Christianity. Ironically, this meant that "the This content downloaded from 128.227.117.138 on Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:11:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MISSION ARCHAEOLOGY 27 most powerful polities were the least able to resist the Spanish conquista" (McGuire & Villalpando 1989:160-161). Who Is Interested in Mission Research, and Why? Those with an interest in missions come from a variety of backgrounds and disciplines. Anthropologists target the role of Christian missionaries in the transformation of non-Western societies (Peel 1995:58 1). In New World mission histories, Catholic historians have generally chronicled missionary ex- pansion for its success in Christianizing the Indians (Arias 1994; Engelhardt 1908-1915; Geiger 1937, 1969; Shea 1855) and for information on friars and priests who were martyred (Harkins 1990). Archaeologists interested in missions include those focused specifically on the contact experience (e.g. Deagan 1983, Deagan & Cruxent 1993, Thomas 1993, South 1988), as well as those who examine mission documents for the information they contain on indigenous groups at the time of contact (Latta 1985). In California, where extant mission buildings are seen as idealized representations of California's Spanish-period past, standing architecture has become a focus of study for its own sake (Baer 1958), and archaeology is used to recover information for the reconstruction of mission buildings for tourists. In Mesoamerica, the concern with missionizing efforts and the location of churches grows from an interest in the politics of conquest and coloni- zation. Sturtevant once suggested (1962:42) that anthropologists attribute differences in the course of Indian-European relations in colonial Latin America to the variety in responses of differing Indian cultures (Service 1955), while historians attribute the course of colonial relations to differing European policies, actions, and institutions. Historians now include native policies and institutions in their scope (Jackson 1995, Langer & Jackson 1995, Weber 1990), but anthropological writing has still not explored European Christian religious roots and practices with a critical eye for difference and contradiction. Most researchers are united by an interest in the role of the missionaries and the church in transforming native American societies and in the structuring of new societies in the Americas. The differences lie in methods of investigation (documentary vs material cultural) and methods of inquiry (historical vs anthropological). Ethnohistorians' focus on documents perforce privileges Euro- pean narratives, and archaeologists' focus on material culture highlights native responses, but cooperation and interchange are widespread, so that a good bal- ance of perspectives is being achieved (Thomas 1989a, 1990a, 1991b). The next section lays out a theoretical context for understanding mission ar- cheology. This is followed by a survey of regional patterns in mission archaeology. The final section expands on investigations in the Maya area, and highlights theoretical issues. This content downloaded from 128.227.117.138 on Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:11:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 28 GRAHAM WHERE SHOULD MISSION STUDIES BE HEADED, AND WHAT ROLE DOES ARCHAEOLOGY HAVE IN EXPANDING OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE MISSION ENCOUNTER? Christianity and the Cultural Imagination In both history and anthropology, missionaries are generally depicted as agents of imperialism (Farnsworth & Jackson 1995, McGuire & Villalpando 1989). Underplayed in these analyses is the impact on what has been called the cultural imagination of the proselytized. (See Ranger n.d. in Comaroff & Co- maroff 1986:1.) The idea of an evolving

Load more