.
ABSTRACT Archaeology on Oregon's Coast has been largely limited in scope and has lacked the holistic viewpoint of Indigenous coastal history. Investigations began in earnest around 1930 with avocational archaeologists like Marcus Seale interested in expanding their “trophy item” collections. The male dominated field of professional archaeology began to evolve in the 1940s and 1950s with investigators from varying backgrounds, like Luther Cressman who began studying the material culture of the Oregon Tribes as if they were an extinct group. The 1970s push for federal recognition brought increased Tribal involvement and collaboration with archaeologists such as Richard Everett “Dick” Ross. Unfortunately, Tribes remain largely uninterested in archaeology as Indigenous individuals and communities continue to be left out of the narrative. Cultural resource professionals at major institutions continue to curate “cultural material” under the aegis of science and resource protection while arguing against the repatriation of material based on either lack of skeletal components, or a misguided understanding of “affiliation” and of Native views of sacredness. We explore the legacy of our predecessors and how we as archaeologists must take a more comprehensive Tribal perspective approach to understanding Oregon coastal history and more respectfully manage legacy collections.
Archaeology on Oregon's Coast has been largely limited in scope and has lacked the holistic viewpoint of Indigenous coastal history. Investigations began in earnest around 1930 with avocational archaeologists like Marcus Seale interested in expanding their “trophy item” collections. The male dominated field of professional archaeology began to evolve in the 1940s and 1950s with investigators from varying backgrounds, like Luther Cressman who began studying the material culture of the Oregon Tribes as if they were an extinct group. The 1970s push for federal recognition brought increased Tribal involvement and collaboration with archaeologists such as Richard Everett “Dick” Ross. Unfortunately, Tribes remain largely uninterested in archaeology as Indigenous individuals and communities continue to be left out of the narrative. Cultural resource professionals at major institutions continue to curate “cultural material” under the aegis of science and resource protection while arguing against the repatriation of material based on either lack of skeletal components, or a misguided understanding of “affiliation” and of Native views of sacredness. We explore the legacy of our predecessors and how we as archaeologists must take a more comprehensive Tribal perspective approach to understanding Oregon coastal history and more respectfully manage legacy collections.
This article focuses on macroscopic, petrographic and X-ray Diffraction (XRD) analyses of figulina pottery from Middle Neolithic (c. 5500–4900 cal BC) villages on the Dalmatian coast of Croatia. Samples were collected from four sites: Smilčić (Zadar), Krivače and Danilo Bitinj (Šibenik) and Pokrovnik (Drniš) to characterize the degree of variation in figulina production between sites and assess if figulina was produced locally or at a single locale in the region. Figulina is of particular interest because it represents a departure from other Neolithic ceramic technologies in pastes, firing, and decoration. This ware is found in small numbers at Middle Neolithic villages, but has parallels in the northern and western Adriatic. Our analyses suggest that this ware was produced within villages with little exchange between sites. Similarities to other regions (Istria, Italy) may indicate a special function or role of this pottery style within Middle Neolithic societies.
