2009 FROM SANTA ELENA TO ST. AUGUSTINE: INDIGENOUS CERAMIC VARIABILITY FROM SANTA ELENA TO ST. AUGUSTINE: INDIGENOUS CERAMIC VARIABILITY (A.D. 1400–1700) KATHLEEN DEAGAN AND DAVID HURST THOMAS Editors and contributors WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY KEITH H. ASHLEY , CHESTER B. DEPRATTER , REBECCA SAUNDERS , GIFFORD J. WATERS , MAR K WILLIA M S , AND JOHN E. WORTH Proceedings of the Second Caldwell Conference St. Catherines Island, Georgia March 30–April 1, 2007 ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Number 90, 229 pages, 77 figures, 42 tables Issued August 26, 2009 Copyright © American Museum of Natural History 2009 ISSN 0065-9452 2009 ETHNICITY AND CERAMICS ON THE SOUTHEASTERN ATLANTIC COAST 179 CHAPTER 8 ETHNICITY AND CERAMICS ON THE SOUTHEASTERN ATLANTIC COAST: AN ETHNOHISTORICAL ANALYSIS JOHN E. WORTH For many decades, Southeastern archaeol- that range from more or less localized “phases” ogists have grappled with the issue of ceramic to extremely far-reaching “cultures” or “tradi- variability in both time and space. The struggle tions” (e.g., Willey and Phillips, 1958), none of includes not just describing and quantifying that which can yet be satisfactorily equated directly variability, but most importantly, explaining with human political or social entities as defined it as a reflection of broader patterns of cultural by anthropologists (or by the pottery makers change and diversity (or lack thereof) among themselves, for that matter). However, even in Native American groups across the southeastern the aftermath of a general disciplinary rejection United States during the last three millennia be- of this “culture history” paradigm that charac- fore European contact, and for several centuries terized most Southeastern archaeology through afterward. The archaeological focus continued the 1960s (e.g., Lyman et al., 1997), many fun- until mass-produced Euro-American ceramics damental tenets of this approach remain implicit largely replaced aboriginal wares during the 19th among practicing Southeastern archaeologists century. In large part owing to the fact that pot- today, including a widespread assumption of at tery was made, decorated, used, and discarded least rough equivalency between assemblages in such a diversity of cultural contexts and for of archaeologically defined ceramic types, and such a wide range of functions, combined with indigenous Native American ethnic groupings, the fact that pots were relatively easy to produce whether defined principally by sociopolitical af- and decorate at the household level, and com- filiation, language, or something else. monly had such a short use life, aboriginal ce- Despite what seems to be a commonly ramics commonly represent one of the most vo- presumed relationship between archaeological luminous and robust datasets for archaeologists ceramics and aboriginal ethnicity, archaeologists to employ in their studies of material culture as a have long been aware of difficulties in the very reflection of past cultural processes. In the past, definition and interpretation of ceramic styles and continuing to the present day, prehistoric ar- using archaeological types and assemblages, chaeologists in particular have utilized aborigi- and the extent to which these types are either nal ceramics in many ways, not least of which “discovered”—and hence reflect meaningful is in the construction and refinement of local categories for the potters themselves—or and regional cultural chronologies into ceramic “assigned”—and hence are principally an style periods, which are commonly used without heuristic device for analytical use by the particular regard to the cultural phenomena that archaeologist (Spaulding, 1953a, 1953b; Ford, doubtless underlie the observed chronological 1954a, 1954b). Even the meaning of ceramic and geographical variation. In addition to simple “style” itself is hotly debated, incorporating a chronology-building, prehistoric aboriginal ce- range of interpretations from style as a conscious ramics are also routinely used to define the geo- communication of social identity (Wobst, 1977) graphical distribution of ceramic style zones to style as a secondary reflection of social 180 ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 90 interaction patterns (Friedrich, 1970), along with much of their methodological and theoretical assorted combined approaches that reflect the foundations from prehistoric archaeology, it is hierarchical nature of style’s many facets, from also possible to apply this in reverse, and ex- the obvious and intentional to the implicit and trapolate specific inferences and generalizations unconscious. Moreover, particular difficulty gleaned from the historic era as an evidentiary has always been evident in the attempts to critique of prehistoric methodologies and theo- forge a meaningful relationship between the retical constructs. Indeed, over the past two de- chronological and geographic dimensions of cades, I have been increasingly intrigued with the observed variability in ceramic material culture. potential of data and analyses from the historic Why, for example, does one ceramic style zone period to contribute substantively and directly to expand spatially over the course of time, and the broader anthropological analysis of ceramic another contract or disappear? And why does variability as a facet of broader questions rela- the ceramic assemblage characterizing an entire tive to human cultural variability and change in style zone undergo transformation, either rapid colonial and noncolonial contexts alike. In my or gradual, in the first place? And how does opinion, the conscious and directed exploitation ceramic variability in space and time relate to of the multifaceted evidentiary record of the his- other dimensions of the cultures of the pottery toric era in the southeastern United States pro- makers themselves? vides many potential opportunities to refine and Strictly speaking, attempts to address these augment existing models relative to aboriginal questions for specific regions wholly within the ceramic variability and its explanation in anthro- prehistoric era are necessarily limited in scope, pological terms. given that the only direct source of additional and The broader struggle to relate aboriginal complementary evidence relative to the groups ceramic variability to human cultural diversity that inhabited that specific region, beyond the in a more general sense is well beyond the scope ceramic evidence itself, is still archaeological of the present paper, but in the pages that follow in nature. While ethnographic analogy and I will explore one specific case study relative ethnoarchaeology from comparative studies in to that loftier goal. Specifically, here I hope other regions around the world undoubtedly to address one of the more nagging research possess considerable relevance for interpreting questions that have plagued archaeologists such data, even if only indirectly, yet another along the southeastern Atlantic coast. It concerns alternative source of explicitly direct evidence the correspondence between ceramic material relative to the southeastern United States of course culture and a series of historically documented lies in the exploration of aboriginal ceramic ethnic groups during the early Spanish colonial variability within the early European colonial era. In particular, I will marshal detailed era, when ethnohistoric evidence is fortunately ethnohistorical evidence (much of which has available to supplement the archaeological only come to light in the past decade and a half) record, sometimes providing remarkable detail to examine associations between four more and depth regarding sociopolitical integration, or less discrete Native American groups—the ethnicity, language, migration, demography, Guale, the Orista/Escamaçu, the Mocama, and trade, warfare, and a myriad of other dimensions the Yamasee—and the observed archaeological of human variability with both spatial and evidence for ceramic variability during the temporal dimensions. Though archaeological turbulent centuries between first contact (ca. studies of this sort are by no means new (Smith, 1514) and the final abandonment (1763) of 1948; Sears, 1955; Fairbanks, 1958; Mason, the coastal region between Port Royal, South 1963; see also critique by Hally, 1971: 61–63), Carolina, and St. Augustine, Florida. The specific and include exemplary and detailed modern question that I hope to explore is whether or not research into aboriginal ceramics during the aboriginal ceramics in this region (defined at the historic period, some specifically relative to the typological level as assemblages of associated study area (Saunders, 2000a; Cordell, 2001; types) are fundamentally linked to these specific Foster, 2004), there still remains much room for ethnicities that are known to have persisted as productive study in this regard. distinct entities over time, or whether patterns While historic archaeologists studying of ceramic variability in both space and time are Southeastern Indians have commonly drawn instead related to other cultural or geographic 2009 ETHNICITY AND CERAMICS ON THE SOUTHEASTERN ATLANTIC COAST 181 factors that are largely independent of ethnicity. during his 1513 voyage, Spanish ships began to To foreshadow my conclusions for this chapter, reach farther and farther north and west from the careful examination of available archaeological Florida peninsula, and at some point between data from a variety of sites of known identity