Am. Archaeology

PREHISTORIC CULTURES OF NORTH AMERICA

S. Crouthamel, American Indian Studies/Anthropology, Palomar College

I. American Archaeology and American Indians

All ancient cultures were interested in previous cultures based on curiosity, value of ancient objects or even as a source of power. However, early field investigations were unscientific and destructive. European enlightenment beginning in the 18th century gave impetus to positivistic thinking that motivated the pursuit of knowledge about the natural and physical world. These antiquarians, as they were called, became interested in socio-cultural evolution and derived chronologies for various early civilizations. Eventually, people like Pitt Rivers (1827-1900) applied systematic methods from his military experiences to archaeological excavation. He understood maps and stratigraphy, so he was able to keep track of objects and features in sequence by maintaining horizontal and vertical control with good record keeping during excavation. This process represented the early beginnings of scientific archaeology.

Early American antiquarians similarly were interested in ancient cultures in America, and used systemic field inquiry with surveying techniques. Thomas Jefferson excavated burial mounds on his plantation, Monticello, in the 1780's. In 1845, Squire and Davis surveyed numerous mound sites in the Ohio River Valley. American archaeology as a professional or academic discipline took some time to develop from amateur antiquarians. Many relic seekers or pot-hunters were digging the thousands of mounds that were found in the Eastern Woodlands. A good deal of prejudice toward Native American culture and a subsequent negative bias blinded many early antiquarians from even recognizing that mounds found in the East were actually components of different Native American cultures. The development of American archaeology in America and particularly the United States was documented by Willey and Sabloff (1993) who produced a chronology, which is summarized below:

Speculative Period (1492-1840)

Europeans came to the 'New World' where Native American civilizations had been thriving for more than 15,000 years. However, speculation was based on non-scientific conjecture and Eurocentric colonial views with very little data. In 1537 Pope Paul III finally decided Native Americans were human, which opened the way for missionaries and conversion. In the 16th and 17th centuries Spanish chroniclers documented some of the Native American civilizations but were primarily interested in the acquisition of wealth. DeSoto in 1539 journeyed through the Southeastern parts of the United States and documented Native American mound cultures in the area. In the 18th and early 19th century English/ American antiquarians and armchair speculators launched a long debate that was both misguided and fueled by the need to justify removal of Eastern Woodland farming cultures. They ignored Spanish and French chroniclers and speculated as to the origin and builders of over 100,000 mounds in the Eastern Woodlands and Prairies of North America. Since they could not believe that the few surviving Indians built the numerous mounds, they speculated that Tartars, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Israelites, Atlantians, or even Welsh built the mounds. In the early 19th century the debate was centered at the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia , PA and the American Antiquarian Society, Boston, MA. Many notable Americans like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster were members. The proceedings of these debates are published and are full of interesting speculations. Some changed their minds over time, but Thomas Jefferson, because of his early excavations was one the few that insisted that Native Americans were responsible for these early cultures.

Classificatory-Descriptive Period (1840-1914)

As the Great Moundbuilder Debate continued the United States government removed most of the Native American people West of the Mississippi River. The policy called the Indian Removal Act of 1830 led to forced removal often called the "Trail of Tears". Most were relocated to the Indian Territory (later Oklahoma). After the Civil War, nation building continued to encourage exploration and expansion of the Western Frontier, that moved beyond the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. John Wesley Powell (a Civil War Veteran who lost his right arm at Shiloh) embarked on many explorations in the West including a trip down the Colorado River in wooden boats in 1869. In 1879 Powell became the director of the Smithsonian Institution's: Bureau of Ethnology (later Bureau of American Ethnology/BAE) and the U.S. Geological Survey/USGS. Powell assigned Cyrus Thomas to the Division of Mound Exploration in 1882 to resolve the Great Moundbuilder Debate. Thomas' findings were published in 1894.

N1365: Putnam at Ohio, Foster's
Earthwork, Warren Co., Ohio, 1890

Similar work was conducted by Frederic Ward Putnam (1839-1915) the Curator of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. In both cases results of systematic excavation revealed evidence that there were at least three mound building cultures. American Indian culture traits were present in the mounds, and some strata produced European trade items. Although, this evidence resolved the debate, it would take the public much longer to realize that these complex cultures were part of ancient Native America. Removal rendered Native Americans out of site and out of mind. The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century brought the development of anthropological museums and departments throughout the U.S. Frederic Ward Putnam was instrumental in establishing a number of anthropology departments including University of California with A.L. Kroeber in 1903. These anthropology departments begin to develop archaeological field schools and began to gather better data about ancient Native American cultures.

Classificatory-Historical Period (1914-1960)

Formalization of inductive research with stratigraphic observation and seriation to produce chronologies of ancient Native American cultures became a major endeavor of the academic institutions in the early 20th century. Typologies and artifact classification were part of archival components of labs and museums. The classification of pottery, especially in the East and Southwest, was a dominant activity at a number of institutions. Kidder's classification (1927) of Southwest cultures were based on extensive excavations at Pecos Pueblo and were augmented with the discovery of dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) by A. E. Douglass of the University of Arizona. Also, a number of ancient ice-age kill sites were discovered that revealed that Native American people were present in the Americas before the end of the last ice-age 10,000 year ago. Geologic information coupled with stratigraphic analysis verified the chronology of these sites. Later, radiocarbon (C14) was developed by W. Libby at the University of Chicago in 1949. A basic chronology emerged by 1958 (Willey and Phillips) and is useful in spite of exceptions and variations in specific culture areas.

Oldest{ Paleo-Indian/Lithic : ancient Pleistocene hunters and gatherers (H&G)

Archaic: post Pleistocene hunters and gatherers; early horticulture;

Formative: horticulture/agriculture; village and sedentary lifestyle

Classic: agriculture; urban city states and empire-building

Youngest{ Post- Classic: agriculture; empires becoming imperialistic

Such classifications can be useful but very controversial especially in terms of the Eurocentric evolutionary implications as well as the restrictions imposed by such typologies on entire cultural milieu. Cultural models are also needed to put together a reconstruction of any ancient culture based upon archaeological data. This data is organized in terms of a hierarchy of terms ( see also: Text-Fagan Table 2-2):

COMPONENT: stratigraphic unit from one site

PHASE: similar components from different sites

HORIZON: Common phases from different regions

These concepts imply data (artifacts, assemblages of tools, structures, sites) in time and space. Larger concepts include : Culture Areas; Sub-Areas; Archaeological Regions. A Cultural Tradition implies common lifestyles over time, e.g. Archaic Tradition. However, a Cultural Period, e.g. Late Archaic Period usually has specific time and space limitations (9,000-1,000 BCE/11,000-3,000 BP Eastern Woodlands). Unfortunately archaeologists are not always consistent in their own use of these terms. American archaeologists also began to examine context in terms of functional-structural approaches to cultural assessments.

Explanatory Period 1960-

Ecological, behavioral and evolutionary explanations became a common theoretical emphasis that dominates archaeological theory still. However, in 1960 L. Binford proposed a "New Archaeology" that delved into general laws and cognition that has emerged into what was called 'processual' archaeology that emphasized specific cases of the process of cultural change and explanation derived from ecological and cultural factors. Further, some archaeologists pushed Binford's concept of 'ideotechnic artifacts' in a 'postprocessual' quest for symbols and meaning of everything including trash. Such inquiry led to implications of gender, agency, leadership and further into the realms of organizational networks, power, communication networks and the return of issues such as diffusion. Debates continued about epistemology, scientific inquiry and even reality. In our course on North America archaeology we will limit ourselves to the best reconstruction of ancient Native American cultures, exemplary sites and some speculation about cultural changes.

Native American groups had their own different perspectives of the past and cultural objects. Many believed it was sacrilegious to dig up the remains of the dead and to move them to places like museums. Artifacts from houses or trash are in some cases viewed as dangerous or sacred and in some cases as valuable information about the past. Today, Native Americans have a variety of views about archaeology and archaeologists. In recent years greater cooperation has been effected by archaeologists consulting in a sincere manner with the Native American of the appropriate community. However, some Native Americans and archaeologists manipulate archaeological finds for personal, political and monetary goals.

Next Lecture: II. Culture Theory and Archaeological Method

Updated 8/2009