American archaeology developed largely as a result of interactions with Native American cultures and the archaeological sites, mounds, and artifacts in the New World. American archaeology, ethnography, and anthropological theory developed in the context of studying and explaining the human activities and experiences of the native people.
I. The Speculative Period (1492-1840)
During this first
period, professional and academic archaeologists were rare.
Exploration in North America, South America, and Mesoamerica by various
European nations and their descendants proceeded, and as the explorers
met new peoples new questions were asked.
"Armchair" explorers began to answer questions about the native people in South America, Mesoamerica, and North America. Complex mounds and earthworks in the Americas perplexed the armchair anthropologists: clearly, the contemporary Native Americans did not possess the intellectual capacity to build these impressive works. The origins of both Native Americans and these "Mound Builders"-- considered to be separate groups-- needed to be explained.
Explanations of the origins of the Mound Builders ranged widely. Because there were earthworks and mounds in Mexico as well as North America, many people speculated that the Mound Builders migrated to Mexico after building the mounds in North America. In 1787, naturalist Benjamin Smith Barton argued that the Danes built the mounds, moved into Mexico and later became the Toltecs though he later attributed the mounds (in 1797) to Native Americans. New York Governor (1817-1828) DeWitt Clinton said Scandinavian Vikings built mounds in western New York state. Caleb Atwater in 1820 suggested that Hindus built the mounds before they migrated into the New World, eventually ending up in Mexico. He also thought that Native Americans migrated into the New World after the original mound builders moved out from this region.
Some anthropologists thought Native Americans did build the mounds. Based on his travels through the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida, William Bartram (1791) said the Creek built mounds and used them. John Haywood noted that the Cherokee also built mounds. The conclusion they drew from observing the contemporary Creek and Cherokee building and using mounds was that the Mound Builders and present day Native Americans were the same peoples. However, this idea was unpopular during this period because prevailing archaeological theory places Native Americans on the end of an evolutionary continuum, and there was little archaeological evidence available. Most of the theories were based on speculation.
II. The Classificatory-Descriptive Period (1840-1914)4)4)) In this period, several institutions-- such as universities, museums, and the federal government-- began to financially and professionally support archaeological activities. Archaeologists sought out more education, and the field became more professional. Most of scholars began to accept the idea that the ancestors of the Native Americans built the mounds, and different tribal groups had built different mounds. Many professional archaeologists began to excavate at several regions; the southwest region; the eastern regions, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maine, Cahokiahokia in Illinois, Ohio-Fort Ancient, Hopewell, the northeast, Quebec, Montreal with Iroquois villages, and Alaska. Archaeological methods, such as scientific surveying, mapping, digging, cross-section drawing, careful plotting, and recording of findings were also developed. Artifacts such as stone tools were classified, and archaeologists began to notice cultural variety. However, although they noticed the environmental differences associated with cultural development, they still believed in uniform cultural stages.
III. The Classificatory-Historical Period: Chronology
(1914-1940)
From this period, chronology became the
main concern in archaeology.
Cultural diffusion
as an idea of culture change
influenced the direction of archaeological studies. Previous typology and classification
developed into stratigraphic and seriation procedures that dealt with pottery
type, artifact sequences and distribution.
N.C.
Nelson also excavated in the southwest region and studied the Rio Grande
Pueblos. He classified pottery depending upon the coloration, and noted the
occurrences and absences of pottery type. However, he didn't note the frequency
and percentage.
Using the method of seriation to describe stylistic change was key in dealing with cultural change through time. Instead of using evolutionary seriation with simple to complex cultural development, similarity seriation was used in this period. Artifacts and other tools were classified by the similarity. Alfred Kroeberoeber classified artifacts by the frequency of their occurrence. The studies indicated the development and replacement of pottery trends. James A. Ford studied Hopewellian, Woodland, and Mississippian pottery. He found cultural variation in the way the pottery was made, such as the use of paste, temper, decoration, and features through time. H.S. Gladwin studied in southern Arizona, and noted that the pottery style was a key indicator of cultural change and the potshards were clues to spatial-temporal cultural variation. Ford and Gordon Willey worked on the mounds of preceramic and nonfarming cultures in the upper middle-eastern region.
In this period dating techniques were also beginning to be used. Alfred Kidder classified Pueblo groups in terms of the cultural diffusion among them and A.E. Douglass, the astronomer calculated the age of the cultural periods through dendrochronology. Chronological study in this period showed historical relationships among cultures that possessed similar pottery styles or designs.
IV. The Classificatory-Historical Period: Context and Function
(1940-1960)
In this period, archaeologists began to deal with Native
cultures in terms of three concepts: artifacts as behavior, settlement pattern,
and the environment, and the context and function of each of these concepts in
the culture. Other disciplines, such as geology, botany and biology, chemistry,
and mathematics began to be more involved in the archaeological field during
this period.
Artifacts were to be understood as the material relics of social and cultural behavior. However, some scholars disagreed with this concept. Paul Martin stated that a culture couldn't be considered as physical objects, nor generalized by the similar styles or types of the objects. Irving Rouse also argued that a culture couldn't be inherent in the artifacts. Culture is a relationship between the object and the people who made and used it.
Walter W. Taylor noted that historiography was necessary in archaeological research, and used artifacts to reconstruct the cultural context. In this period, many archaeologists began to realize the environmental aspects that affected cultural development. Research of Waldo R.Wedel’s Great Plains, Emil W. Haury’s Ventana Cave, Arizona, and E.W.Gifford’s California shellmounds showed the relationships between the native cultures and the environment. Julian H.Steward developed the environmental-evolutionary theory, known as cultural ecology or multilinear evolution. The natural environment determines the cultural development and technological adaptations.
Radiocarbon dating techniques began to be used in archaeological research during this period. Many projectile points and bifacial flaking were found in the North American High Plains and southwestern region. Clovis or Clovis like points was also found in the eastern region. Using the C-14 technique, archaeologists could now estimate the date of those artifacts. Those results support the idea that the ancestors of native Americans came from Asia at approximately 10,000 B.C.
V. The Modern Period: Explaining and Understanding
(1960-present)
The concept of the cultural evolution, which developed
in the late 1950’s, is based on New Archaeology. The Comparative Method
was used to study Native American culture. However, this time, cultural stages
were not merely formulated, but the social and cultural dimensions were
considered. This New Archaeology was called Processualism, and archaeologists
systematically studied cultures by studying the environment and cultural
variability, by using statistic sampling, and by taking a general scientific
approach in their studies. Archaeologists questioned and researched the
function and the nature of cultural change.
Class Status
L.R. Binford studied the tools and weapons in the Wisconsin Great Lakes regions. This metal technology is known as the Old Copper culture in the Archaic period. Tools in this region were covered with copper. However, copper was relatively rare in the period, and this trend was only found in the graves. He also found this technology didn’t continue to the later culture in the same region. Those copper implements were probably used as symbols for the hunting, fishing, and woodworking activities. This study suggests that there was status symbols among the egalitarian society. These items came to be called "socio-technic."
Mortuary
Willian H.Sears excavated Etowah (Georgia), an ancient ceremonial center. Paraphernalia from the site reflect the social stratification and politico-religious organization among the cultures in the area.
James J.F. Deetz worked on the ceramics of Arikara society. He dealt with grains, pottery decoration, and the features and sizes of houses. He found out that the size of matrilocal residences were larger than those of patrilocal families. William A. Longacre, James N. Hill, and Robert Whallon conducted similar research about room sizes, pottery design, and features in Pueblo villages in Arizona, of the Hopi and Zuni, and of Iroquois villages in New York State. They found that single kin unit villages were replaced by larger ones, and social interactions, including marriage, especially exogamy among tribes, influenced the changing style of pottery and the decorations on the pottery. Ethnological aspects were important.
Environment
W.T. Sanders states that technology, subsistence, and the environment connect with each other in cultural survival, and that the culture is a complex adaptation system to a certain geographical region. A simple agricultural society, which adapts to a particular environment, can shift to civilization. Technology development, such as canal irrigation systems increase the food capacity and induce a population increase. Demographic pressure and social complexities change the region to a state and civilization.
From the middle of the modern period (1970’s), archaeologists began to be concerned more about human behavior and the study of Native American cultures. Frank Hole said that whatever directions we may take in method, theory, technique, era or area, we must keep in mind the central idea that we are dealing with and trying to understand the human experience. Archaeology is not merely a science of material culture, but concerns of human beings and their cultural behavior in the past. This trend is called Postprocessualism.
Ethnographic analogy is becoming more important to archaeological research than histographical seriation and trying to understand larger patterns of human behavior and activities from archaeological findings. A dilemma between Processualism and Postprocessualism still remains in today’s American archaeology. However, a combination of the scientific approach, ethnological research, and the concept of cultural anthropology helps today’s American archaeologists to find the route of migration from Asia, and the subsistence, technology, and behavior of Paleo-Indian.
Willey, Gordon R. and Sabloff, Jeremy A. A History of American Archaeology (3rd ed). W.H.Freeman and Company, New York, 1993.