Yamasee migrations into Spanish Florida in the period 1667–1683. Because the Yamasee quickly adopted the local coastal ceramic tradition, their archaeological presence is hard to identify. Ashley reviews past research and presents the results of his own work. Eric Poplin and Jon Bernard Marcoux focus on archaeological remains of the Yamasee in Georgia and South Carolina. They note that “Each Yamasee town appears to have been an independent community” (p. 84). I would point out that each town was essentially the remains of a former chiefdom. Although the Yamasee quickly adopted coastal ceramic styles, the authors suggest several ceramic modes (for example, modes of application of line block stamped motifs) that distinguish the Yamasee from their coastal neighbors. Alexander Sweeney looks at archaeological remains of the Yamasee in South Carolina. He demonstrates continuity in house forms, activity areas, and burial practices from the Oconee Valley to South Carolina. Historian Denise Bossy analyzes the 1713 trip to England by the Yamasee Prince, the only southeastern native to travel to England between 1672 and 1730. The Prince clearly hoped to make diplomatic connections in England; however, his sponsors, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, severely limited his access to government officials. They were more interested in making the Prince a missionary. Although the Prince did eventually meet King George in 1715, as a whole the diplomatic journey was a failure from the native perspective. Jane Landers considers the connections between the Yamasee and Africans in Carolina and Florida. Africans helped the Yamasee during the Yamasee War and in their move to Florida, but Africans were treated differently by Christian Yamasee and non-Christian Yamasee. The former saw them as allies, while the latter treated them as “disposable property.” Landers provides a clear outline of the fate of Africans in Spanish Florida. Steven Hahn demonstrates that the Yamasee War dragged on for years after the 1715 date some consider as the end. He sees Native-English antagonistic relations continuing until 1763, when Spanish-allied Natives were removed to Cuba. Amanda Hall looks at the historical evidence and archaeological remains of Yamasee towns in St. Augustine following the retreat of the Yamasee to Spanish Florida after 1717. The Yamasee continued to make San Marcos pottery. Their subsistence remains indicate that they preferred hunting to agriculture or fishing, but that they also had a few domesticated animals. Andrea White looks at the La Punta Yamasee community in St. Augustine after 1715. La Punta actually increased its population during the eighteenth century despite overall loss of Native American population in St. Augustine. White suggests that people coalesced here. La Punta people made round houses (but Map 13 is not entirely convincing), adopted Christian burial practices, continued to make San Marcos ceramics, and used a community well (certainly not aboriginal practice). Susan Richbourg Parker traces the lineage of Chief Francisco Jospogue through historical records. The chief was a Christian, spoke Spanish, received a pension for his service to Spain, and lived in St. Augustine rather than in a native community. In short, he, his wife, and later her second husband became full members of the Spanish colonial society. In the final chapter, John Worth summarizes historical evidence of the Yamasee in West Florida from St. Marks to Pensacola. The Yamasee settled on their own near Spanish settlements, yet maintained their distance and independence from the Spaniards. I would note that two of the authors incorrectly place the location of the prehistoric Ichisi chiefdom on the Oconee River instead of the Ocmulgee; I was surprised that none of the conference participants cited research by Charles Hudson (Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun 1997) for information on the early chiefdoms that were to become the Yamasee. Mark Williams’s research on the Shoulderbone mound site would also have been relevant to sixteenth and early seventeenth-century archaeological remains of the Altamaha. In spite of these omissions, this is an excellent volume bringing together new information on the Yamasee in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It focuses on themes of Yamasee independence and adaptability. It is highly recommended.

中文翻译：

---

水晶河乡村生活的新历史

Yamasee 在 1667-1683 年间迁移到西班牙佛罗里达州。由于 Yamasee 很快就采用了当地沿海陶瓷传统，因此很难确定他们的考古存在。Ashley 回顾了过去的研究并展示了他自己的工作成果。Eric Poplin 和 Jon Bernard Marcoux 专注于佐治亚州和南卡罗来纳州 Yamasee 的考古遗迹。他们注意到“每个 Yamasee 镇似乎都是一个独立的社区”（第 84 页）。我要指出的是，每个城镇基本上都是一个前酋长领地的遗迹。尽管 Yamasee 很快采用了沿海陶瓷风格，但作者提出了几种将 Yamasee 与沿海邻居区分开来的陶瓷模式（例如，线块冲压图案的应用模式）。亚历山大·斯威尼 (Alexander Sweeney) 看着南卡罗来纳州亚马西 (Yamasee) 的考古遗迹。他展示了从奥科尼山谷到南卡罗来纳州的房屋形式、活动区域和墓葬实践的连续性。历史学家丹尼斯·博西 (Denise Bossy) 分析了 Yamasee 王子 1713 年的英国之行，他是 1672 年至 1730 年间唯一到过英格兰的东南部本地人。王子显然希望在英国建立外交关系；然而，他的赞助商，福音传播协会，严重限制了他接触政府官员的机会。他们更感兴趣的是让王子成为传教士。尽管王子最终确实在 1715 年会见了乔治国王，但总体而言，从本地人的角度来看，这次外交之旅是失败的。简兰德斯考虑了卡罗莱纳州和佛罗里达州亚马西人和非洲人之间的联系。非洲人在亚马西战争期间帮助亚马西人，并在他们迁往佛罗里达州的过程中，但是基督教亚马西和非基督教亚马西对待非洲人的态度是不同的。前者视其为盟友，后者视其为“可支配财产”。兰德斯清晰地描绘了西班牙佛罗里达州非洲人的命运。史蒂文·哈恩 (Steven Hahn) 证明，在某些人认为是结束的 1715 年之后，山西战争持续了数年。他认为土著与英国的敌对关系一直持续到 1763 年，当时与西班牙结盟的土著人被转移到古巴。1717 年亚马西人撤退到西班牙佛罗里达后，阿曼达·霍尔 (Amanda Hall) 研究了圣奥古斯丁亚马西镇的历史证据和考古遗迹。亚马西人继续制作圣马科斯陶器。他们的生存遗骸表明他们更喜欢打猎而不是农业或渔业，但他们也有一些家养动物。安德里亚·怀特 (Andrea White) 观察了 1715 年后圣奥古斯丁的拉蓬塔亚马西社区。尽管圣奥古斯丁的美洲原住民人口整体减少，但拉蓬塔的人口实际上在 18 世纪有所增加。怀特暗示人们在这里融合。拉蓬塔人建造圆形房屋（但地图 13 并不完全令人信服），采用基督教葬礼习俗，继续制作圣马科斯陶瓷，并很好地利用社区（当然不是土著习俗）。苏珊·里奇伯格·帕克通过历史记录追溯了弗朗西斯科·乔斯格酋长的血统。酋长是基督徒，讲西班牙语，因在西班牙服役而领取养老金，住在圣奥古斯丁而不是土著社区。简而言之，他、他的妻子以及后来的第二任丈夫成为西班牙殖民社会的正式成员。在最后一章，John Worth 总结了西佛罗里达州从圣马克斯到彭萨科拉的 Yamasee 的历史证据。Yamasee 人在靠近西班牙定居点的地方定居，但与西班牙人保持距离和独立。我要指出的是，两位作者错误地将史前 Ichisi 酋长领地的位置放在 Oconee 河上，而不是 Ocmulgee 上；令我惊讶的是，会议参与者中没有人引用 Charles Hudson（西班牙骑士队，太阳勇士队 1997）的研究，以获取有关将成为 Yamasee 的早期酋长领地的信息。马克威廉姆斯对肩骨丘遗址的研究也与阿尔塔马哈 16 世纪和 17 世纪早期的考古遗迹有关。尽管有这些遗漏，这是一本汇集了 17 和 18 世纪有关 Yamasee 的新信息的优秀著作。它侧重于 Yamasee 独立性和适应性的主题。强烈推荐。