North American Archaeology

A History of American Archaeology, 3

The Classificatory-Descriptive Period 1840 -1914

Several blows against the Moundbuilder myth were struck, but often to little avail

Publication of Samuel Morton's Crania Americana in 1839. Though it was weak in methodology, it demonstrated that there was no difference in skulls taken from mounds and those of recently deceased Indians.

Forerunners of Archaeology as a Discipline

Though speculation on a narrow database was the rule, several threads toward a modern archaeology can be traced.

Even Sir Mortimer Wheeler, the eminent British archaeologist, has attributed to Thomas Jefferson the first scientific excavation in the history of archaeology

In 1784 Jefferson decided to discover the nature of the mounds on his Virginia property: "That they were repositories for the dead, has been obvious to all; but on what particular occasion constructed, was a matter of doubt."

He carefully trenched the mound, recognizing strata that had no relation to each other. He discovered large quantities of skeletal material that had been carefully placed in the mound, covered with earth, the process repeated many times to reach its final height of twelve feet. Taking notes and making sketches

Significance:

The very fact that he excavated at all-most didn't
Excavations sufficient to see strata and associations
Most important - he dug not for objects, but for to resolve an archaeological problem

As for the Moundbuilder myth, he would not commit himself

He did become president of the American Philosophical Society, and asked for good archaeological data. APS became interested in the debate

Gave rise to the American Antiquarian Society in 1812, with many important people (Henry Clay, DeWitt Clinton, Daniel Webster).

Important in that it gave archaeology a focal point and published significant works

From the AAS Transaction in 1820, appeared Caleb Atwater's "Description of the Antiquities Discovered in the State of Ohio and Other Western States"

Atwater was a postmaster who explored many mounds in his region.

First part of his work was descriptive - he used a three part classification scheme: Modern European, Modern Indian, and Moundbuilder -- its significance was the description and classification

Second part of his work was speculative. He favored the migration of Hindus. He was at least more restrained than some.

Bright spots of the Speculative Period

1. Some rudimentary development of archaeological method

2. Some recognition of what is now the ruling archaeological view of human habitation of NA, the migration out of Asia across the Bering Strait

As of 1840, American archaeology as a scholarly entity simply did not exist

No full time practitioners and no professionals
No field methodology
The conceptual "inventory" was minimal
Data base slim, chronological knowledge (absolute or relative) was rudimentary at best
Some survey data on the mounds of Ohio River and SE Some of the major ruins of Mexico, Peru known, but most of the New World was unknown
Generally not accepted except by a few scholars that Indians arrived from Asia via Bering Straits

Other bright spots:

Stephens and Catherwood began their explorations of Mesoamerica in 1839,
James Smithson left his half million $,
Grave Creek Mound in Ohio had been dug and Henry Schoolcraft was soon to publish his results, and
Lyell had already published his Principles of Geology

Classificatory Period, 1840-1914

Distinguished by a distinct change of attitude and outlook among practitioners

The principal focus was on the description of archaeological materials, especially architecture and monuments, and rudimentary classification of them

Scholars struggled to bring archaeology into a systematic scientific discipline

However, the intellectual trend that characterized the Speculative Period did not go away immediately (or ever, actually!)

The influences of a European scientific tradition were starting to come into play

1. Throughout the period there would be a steady increase in the discovery and description of antiquities as the US pushed westward.

2. Work began to be sponsored by the government, universities, museums, scientific societies.

3. Archaeology became both a recognized avocation and a vocation which toward the end of the period would be taught in universities.

4. Alliance between archaeology and anthropology began as a long-lasting conceptual union.

But the dominant question of the period remained the origin of Indians, but it also saw the resolution of the Moundbuilder Myth

First major contribution of the period was Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley by E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis in1848

Best description of the time, accurately surveyed an number of mounds and excavated in some and brought together work of others, as well as doing salvage of mounds being destroyed

Aided by Joseph Henry, a renowned scientist and secretary of the new Smithsonian Institution

They used a rudimentary classification of mounds.

However, they still supported the Moundbuilders as a lost race

Another work was that of Increase A. Lapham of Wisconsin who explored and mapped many of the Effigy Mounds, as part of the American Antiquarian Society efforts published by the Smithsonian

Even though the Moundbuilder Myth ruled, a few scholars recognized that those who built the mounds were ancestors of the Indians:

Samuel Haven published his Archaeology of North American in 1856 as a survey of what was known. He concluded that the ancient lost Moundbuilder race was untenable. A model of reason description.
Henry Schoolcraft also opposed the Moundbuilder hypothesis after examining remains from the Grave Creek Mound in Ohio. He saw the continuities to Indians, but they were buried in a six volume, unindexed work.

Still the debate raged, much of it described in Fantastic Archaeology, but two institutions had immeasurable impact on the demise of the Moundbuilders: Smithsonian and Peabody Museum

Smithsonian Institution and the Bureau of American Ethnology

1. Cyrus Thomas and the BAE

2. Congress insisted that John Wesley Powell and BAE director and USGS spend $5,000 a year on mound research

3. Thomas named Director of Mound Exploration in 1882

4. Many workers hired and surveys completed, oral tradition examined

5. Many attackers like Henry Henshaw who went after many proposing the myth

Davenport Tablets as example

6. 12th annual report of the BAE did in the Myth for any serious scholar

Peabody Museum

Frederick Ward Putnam was curator at the Peabody and Professor of American Archaeology from 1887-1909.

A leading figure in the period as both an excavator, sponsor , administrator, and founder of museums and departments of anthropology

He was a "professionalizer of American Archaeology."

He was in charge of the Archaeology exhibit at the 1892 Exposition in Chicago and helped found the Field Museum, the dept. of Anthropology at Berkeley, and the Anthro dept at the American Museum of Natural History .

He excavated and helped save the Great Serpent Mound in Ohio.

Others of importance:

William Henry Holmes helped set the tone for artifact classification with his work on ceramics and stone tools.

Ales Hrdlicka brought scientific rigor to discoveries of early remains but was often misunderstood.

The conceptual "inventory" grew out of an association with anthropology

Initially, evolutionism, but then Franz Boas rejected it in favor of what has been called historical particularism

There might be general rules of human cultural development, but we had too little data to determine them.

In one sense that fit well with the period and its explosion of data.

But artifacts and descriptions alone say little about the past. An important element - time - was missing

larry-zimmerman@uiowa.edu
University of Iowa Anthropology
08.20.98