You are on page 1of 12


Strong's ciassificafirlll of Plams cu/trlrl5 in accordance wltll lire Midwesttml Taxonomrc Method. Strong, however, lUll> arrallged tire dll5sification in a dmmological ordering - II procedure 1I0t a pari Of tile Midwestem ~stem, tFrom Strong, 1935)


times, so that the excavation of these sites reveals artifact complexes that can be associated with identifiable tribes or ethnic groups. The archaeologist may then find other sites in the region whose artifact complexes show stylistic overlap with the historically identified complexes but whose origins or beginnings go back to prehistoric times,

The term direct-historical approach seems to have been first used in a formal designatory way by W. R. Wedel (1938); however, the basic principle behind it is almost as old as archaeology, It was used by the Spanish explorers in Middle America and Peru in the sixteenth century when they identified certain living Native American groups with earlier monuments; Cyrus Thomas and F, H. Cushing employed the approach, albeit in a limited way, in their respective mound and Southwestern Pueblo an studies, and it is the principle that linked Kroeber's prehistoric potsherd seriations to the historical and modem Zulli sites, The directhistorical approach was also followed by A. C. Parker in New York State as early as 1916, when he investigated Native American village sites and

Suggested Cultural Classijkalion for Certain Nebraska (and Colorado) Sites

Bas~c c-uJture Phase Aspect
Focus Component
Upper Omaha Rock Bluffs, Gates
Mississippi Nebraska Saunders, Walker
Gilmore IL
St. Helena Butte, St. Helena, etc,
---- .... _- -~------ ~ - - -
Lost Creek Lost Creek, Prairie
Sweetwater Dog Creek, etc.
Upper Sweetwater, Munson
Creek, etc.
Republican Medicine Medicine
Creek Creek
Mississippi Central North Platte Signal Butte, Ill, etc.
Plains Lower Loup Beaver Burkett, Schuyler,
(Protohist, Creek etc.
Lower Platte Columbus Horse Creek, Fuller-
(Historic ton, Linwood, etc,
Republican Hill, etc,
Woodland Iowa "Algon_
kian" Sterns Creek Walker Gilmore I

Si~al Signal Butte Signal Butte II
litte II (?)
Great Plains Early Signal
HUnting Butte I Signal Butte Signal Butte I
Folsom Northern LinJenmeier (ColO.)
-- Colorado

, tribes (parker 1916; see also Win-

related them to historical Iroquoian A Ritchie continued Parker's work

temberg, 1928, 1936,1939). Later, W, 'f the region that were antecelndeveloping the prehistori~ sequ:~s or 'an cultures (Ritchie, 1932, dent to the rustoricallroquOlan an g?n~~~ Southeast, and Ford £01- 1938), Collins pioneered the approac~6~~tirling 1940). But it was W, D. lowed his lead (Collins, 1927; Ford, 19 , h d-' t~historical approach

t t' etus to t e irec

Strong who gave the grea es imp .. traduction to Nebraska Archaeology

with his important monograph An In

in 1935,29 . ith a rich background of

Strong, assisted by W, R. Wedel, began Wl bled by ethnologists

. h t had been assem . ,

historic-site documentation 30t a . d hi'.storical Pawnee sites

1 '., They excavate

and amateur arch. a.eo ogts"s-. ... iod sit of the same tribe, From

hi t P eno sites ,

and the closely related proto .1S nne- " ' ites of the region, This

, h fun prehistonc 51 .

these, they went on to dig t e . y 38 1940' Strong, 1940) laid the

andsubsequentre earch~edel,1936,19 'with'its prehistoric Up~r firm groundwork for Plains archaeology, ltural sequence In

, , d hi tori Pawnee cu

RepUblican, protohistonc, ans orlc, . 1 aspects of the work

, I d ethnohistonca

Nebraska, The chronologica an, .. h triking cultural changes

were further enhanced and dramatized by t e sl ment of this tradition

t ' the deve op d

that Strong was able to demonstra em en transforme to

.. ., h ' It rists were se ,

of Plains cultures, Rivenne ortlC.U U , . to h istoric centunes

1 t rehlstonc- - , ,

horse nomads in the span of thea e p for cultural interpretatwn

(Strong, 1933)_ The potential of the approachb, s Strong's "Nebraska

. h was 0 VlOU ' th

and the examination of culture c ange, kind of archaeology, as e

archaeology" became a model for this . the late 19305 and

Am . lean areas m

method Was then carried to other er

after. , erly termed an approach,

The direct-historical approach is quite prdop d it in opposition to

. , J H Stewar pose . f

not a d.assi.·>; cation, At one time. j. ' . 1 rive and be. tte.f way 0

':J' h d an a terna n

the Midwestern Taxonomic Met or as , eal conflict betwee

d ' 42) B t there 15 no r , taxo-

Olngarchaeology (Steward, 19 ,u M'dwestern scheme IS

the two on methodological groundS., The_ 1 a roach is a method for nOmic and comparative; the direct-hiS~~rlcal PtoP be the latter, however,

, . hi- les It was

!nveshgating specific cultural sto,n. archaeological cultures-

that led into functional interpretations of

d artifact typology, Stratigraphic and seriational metho~sl P:~dri: approach wer~ all Culture_un., it cla sifi anon. and the drr€ctH- . t ri cal Period in Amencan

1 I ifi tory- lS0., The term

ernp oyed during the early Classi lea . on of cultural history. . an

archaeology for th eventual reconstructl d to mean a good m. Y

b interprete h IOglsts

reconstruction of culturalllistory may. e d on it by arcaeo

different things, and the cormotations place up





Pre-Co/umbilt1! Pel"U1.nan POttery, a Rel:uilY style VessellO;tlr

negative-painted decoration. (Courtesy of tire Ber/in Staatiiche Mu~unf)


in the Modern Period are not quite the same as those of 50 years ago; but, to most New World archaeolOgists of 1940, the goal of such reconstruction, or certainly an intermediate goal, was the area synthesis .. Such a synthesis was usually little more than an ordering of the archaeological remains of a given area in a spatial-temporal framework. The essence of this ordering was the archaeolOgical chronology chart, a diagram arranged with chronolOgical periods in a vertical column and geographical subdivisions across the top, so that the various culture units (phases, foci) could be placed in their appropriate boxes. By 1940, a number of such American area charts Could be drawn with reasonable confidence. In the North American Southwest, the time column could be calibrated in absolute years, thanks to dendrochronology (tree-ring dating); and, for parts of Middle America, absolute chronOlogy was provided by the Pre-Columbian Maya calendar, Elsewhere, relative chronology still prevailed. Besides the Southwest and Middle America, large-scale area syntheses had been attempted in Peru, the eastern U nited States, Alaska, and the West Indies. In addition to these areas- all of which correspond ~ore ~r less to the culture areas of the ethnographer _ there were others ~ which archaeolOgical chronolOgies had been begun on limited regional bases but had not yet been extended in area-wide fashion.


Three) that the first American

We have already observed (Chapter . d d the Classificatory-His-

area archaeological synthesis ac~ally preceo: Max Uhle, who piece~ toricaI Period, This was the achievement listie seriation, the horitogether a Peruvian area chronology-from S~d and Inca styles, and

f h Tahuanacot

zon-marking effectiveness 0 tel 900 F r a while, little was

OccaSional stratigraphic da~a - as early a;~ed ~ ;eru by J C. Tello and done With the UhIe synthesis, He was foll b t they were as much P. A Means. These were both able scholars, u .... archaeology, and

' . d In thnology as .u.'

Interested in ethnohistory an ca e , .thadequatesupport-

' 1 leal conclusIOns W1 . d li tl

neIther. presented his archaeo ogtc h P . vian past pal t e

. - .. ti of t e eru . f

mg eVidence. Tello's reconstruc Ion In t d he saw the nse 0

'·1 heme . s ea , .

attention to the Uhle chronologica sc " f upper Amazonian on-

Peruvian civilization fro.ID the point of vlewF 0.' ranee he utilized the

. 32 d b Uhle or IDS J .

gIns. Means was more influence33 y . h was not a field archae-

hori 'however, e

concept of a Tiahuanaco onzon:


A ModIC style effigy vessel. Both this figure and tire Recuay style vessel date from wllat Wl[e designated as his Early Period (now referred to by archaeologists as Early [Pltermediate Period). (From tile Peabody Museum, Harvard University)


Southwestern ('ultuml areas (or regions) following Kidder's 1924 ~-.lfll thesis. (1) Silt! I Ullrr; (2) Northern Peripheral; (3) Rio Grande; (4) Eastern Peripheral: (5) Little C%rodo; (6) Upper Gila; (7) Mimbres; (8) Lower Gila; (9) Guhuahua Basin, (From Kidder, 1924)


PERIOD (1914-40)

ologist, and he did nothing to verify' d-

struct or isprovs the Uhle chronoIogr' cal


The leading proponent and chief '

sis was Kroeber As lr d conceptuahzer of the Uhle synthe-

. . a ea y noted he d detail .

~he Uhle collections in the 1920s ~ rna e e~al ed Se~lation studies on

in Peru in the same d dId also carried out field explorations

" eca e. In 1927 he publish d . .

eoa. st and Highland in P hi. " . e an Import.ant article,

re stone P " I hi

work and his own inv tizati em, n t s, he summarized Uhle's

es ganon, cornm t d

schemes, and went on t 1- j en e on the Tello and Means

a out me what h id '

problems of Peruvian haeol e cons] ered to be the major

- arc aeo ogy H .

clarification of <hronot . al ." e conceIved of these mainly as the

. ogic relationsh' S b

ex. cavations of W C B ips. U sequently, following the

. . ermett (1934 1936 19 . .

(1938-40,1941) in the 1930s K b ' ~ 39) and Rafael Larco Hoyle

over,the country rev' , " roe er VISIted Peru once more traveling

, leWmg sItes and ller+i . '

number of young collea h co ectIOns, and conferring with a

ul· gues w 0 were th di , .

res t of this visit was th h en Iggmg In the country. The

(Kr e s ort monogr h P .

oeber, 1944).ln it h ap eruvlan ArchaeoloQ1J in 1942

f ' e accepted Lar HI' 6:7

o the Chavin culture and I co ayes and Tello's early dating

. th P - paced Chavin h -

m e erUVlan area synth ' In as anot er major horizon style

d eSIS. additi t th

ca ~a.?" the Kroeber 1942 ~ th ~n. 0 e substantive chronologi-

clear deflrution of this yn esrs IS also noteworthy for its first As might be ex concept of the lwrizon style.

b hi d . peeted, the North Am ..

. e n Peru in chronolo ' I .' encan Southwest was not far

IntrodUction to the Study offsca tShynthesls. In 1924, Kidder published An

nin b.J:· . . 'J ou western A .1_ I

. e su UJVlSlOns of the South rcnaeo.ogy. In this, he mapped

archaeology of each in aCCord an west~rn area34 and then treated the Basket Maker; (2) Post-Basket Ce WIth a chronological scheme of: (1) These generally correspo d Maker; (3) Pre~Pueblo; and (4) Pueblo.

which n to the per' d

Basket Was to be deVised in the 192710 s of the Pecos Classification,

ul Maker was to become B k Conference, a few years later-

~ tural beginnings of the Soasthetmaker It the prepottery but hortifi ~wn; Post-Basket Maker wa U h western sequence as it was then . e . Basketmaker culture Whi.shc anged to Basketmak,er III the modi-

Its small bo 'c po' ,

, a ve-gtound struct Ssessed pottery; Pre-Pueblo with

more Or less UTes and ]" r

and full synonymous WithPuebI ,re atlvely SImple pottery, was

TIl d ~eveloped Pueblo co' 01 in the later Pecos Classification; Sh~: h . Kidder prefaced :!se~p~~~ed to the periods of Pueblo II, Iife-w c apter o~ the modern puebl e ~ng of the archaeology with a variouasyps anbd history, and it also o·UOs. d s deSCribed something of their

ue loa ere sug .

tOric cul'tu n groups may hay d . gestlOns as to just how the

res M eescend d fr

the nO.rthe '. ~st of Kidder's archa .. e om the earlier prehis-

Southwe t rn regIons and from the R.eologlcaJ information came from s , SUch as the SOuthern d 10 Grande. For other parts of the

eserts littl .

1 e more could be offered In



1924 than a description of "red-on-buff" pottery and some of the adobe architecture,

In spite of its limitations, Kidder's Introduction marked the coming of age of the Southwest as an archaeological area. New work could be fitted into a spatial-temporal structure, and such a structure pointed the way to progress. Great advances were made in the 1930s. One of these was methodological and interdisciplinary, A. E. Douglass, the astronomer, had long been studying Southwestern tree-ring growth patterns as an aid in research on sunspot cycles, Beginning with living trees, he also extended his search for materials into archaeological Pueblo ruins, which had preserved wooden timbers. By 1929, he had built up two long tree-ring sequences. One ran back from the present, through the histo~ic, and into the late prehistoric Pueblo periods; the other was a floating chronology, which pertained to some as yet unassigned segm~nt of t~e prehistoric past. In the summer of 1929, timbers were found ill certam prehistoric ruins in eastern Arizona that allowed Douglass to close the gap between his two tree-ring chronologies. The result was a means of accurate year-to-year dating, which could be applied to those Southwestern ruins located in the northern regions of the area where th.e proper trees and tree-growth circumstances permitted- A beam speermen, of either preserved wood or charcoal, was simply ~ompared against the master tree-ring chronology and placed at that pomt wh~re its patterns of ring growth (large or normal year rings contrasted WIth small or drought year rings) indicated a match (McGregor, 1941, pp . 69-85; Bannister, 1963). By the middle 1930s, Southwestern ~hronology for the northern and northeastern regions could be quoted m absolute time, Thus, it became known that Basketmaker II antedated A.D- 500; Basketmaker III fell between 500 and 700; Pueblo I, between 700 and 900; Pueblo II. between 900 and 1100; Pueblo III lasted from 1100 to 1300;f~~ Pueblo IV lasted from 1300 to 1600 (McGregor, 1941, p. 322). One 0

. ak h h eoloo1c:ts aware of the

thmgs this exact dating did was to m . e t e arC . a . 0- d h

. . .' d. d and this pointe up tl e

tune~lag factor m cultural diffuslOn an sprea ,. . f

f Cl if tion were really stages 0 act that the periods of the Pecos ass ica . I

b I t time periods Wtth chrono -

cultural development rather than a so u e - ". d

ogy held as an extra-cultural constant, archaeologists co~ld nlowthPonhae~

h here prevIOUS y. ey

rates of cultural spread and culture c ange: W .

only culture ehange itself as a measure of hm~. I d Th Glad-

. h b tantive know e ge, e

The other advances were In s eer su st _ H h kam cultural

. th th rn Arizona 0 0

wins and their cohorts opened e sou e I ' 1 dis

. . . th t atic chrono - -

dlvision of the Southwes. t thro. ugh. e sys em '. f t "';'graphy

. di discusslons 0 s ran ,

tri ~utional work that has been note '. In our . di d the same for the

senation, and classification. Haury an. d Martin 1 M . an cultures

ha nes to eXIC' ,

Mogollon country. Hohokam was seen to ve 1


" oJ·
4 '"
. .. C'
P C)
. ' ~ .
. " .

o " -

. ~ , -------



PERIOD (1914-40)

and Mogollon could be linked to both H

name for the Basketmake P bl , ohokam and, to Anasazi (the new

r- ue 0 cultural .

area was proving to be more culturall ,continuum). In general, the

, N~w area syntheses of the 1930[ diverse than had been thought. dIversIty into account. Roberts did h' ~ttempted to take this cultural 1937), and H 5 Glad' ff t 1S in two summary articles (1935

" win 0 ered anoth " '

monograph on the 5 k .er overview ill the concluding

na etown excavati (19

McGregorbroughtouthisb k I ons 37, vol. 2). When J. c.

he had to make accomm d o? - en~ Southwestern A rchaeology in 1941,

f 0 ation for still . .

as orchronoloo-icalexpan ' more regional diversity as well

C· e- sron !twas I .

ochrse culture had - now C ear that a hunting-collecting

preceded the Ba k tm k

sea ers and the other early





. ) ,

r r

, ' ,

o L...._,


On drawing if

eXCllVated by MerWin' 0 Q pyramid, Holmul, Guatemnl .

architec'" 1 tn 1912, and it is in . a, This Mnya LoWland building was

'uTa strati a A rportanhn M

pyramid da! gr. Ply (which Was no! . d. aya arc1Jae%gy because of its

es as Lllte Cl' ma e known II ti!

roomsdat E' liSSIe; iha; Portion ';th' 1) I 1932), The outer casing of/he

. esas arly Cl ' ole JfJ ierior t ,. '

tombs 8 lurd 9 asSlC; tire earliest b 'idi s ructu re wr,th the corbelled-vault

, dafes LlI mg ph« .

Maya Lowl . (/S very late Preclassi Th .se, wrtlr()ut vaulted buildfPlgs and with

IInds to be id ' c, e POttery}

Mexico (F entified as simi! . , . am these tombs wa~ the fir~t from the

. rom Menoi ar to Spmden' ,

It and Vailumt, 1932) S ArchaIC pottery from tire Val/try of



Southwestern farmers by several thousand years.35 McGregor (1941. p. 67) ,even su~gested a new Southwestern-widearea chronology, with a pe~lO~ terminology that was intended to capture the salient characteristics of each period; however, he did not use the scheme in his actual data presentation but reverted instead to the more conventional subareal chronologies of Anasazi, Hohokam, Mogollon, and Patayan.

In Middle America, there had been some chronological ordering in the Ma~a Lowlands prior to 1914. This had been made possible by the translations of Maya calendrical inscriptions and the correlations of these calendrical dates with those of the Christian calendar, Although there was some debate as to just how these correlations should be made, the result was a /I floating chronology" almost 600 years in length, which fell somewhere in the first millennium A.D_36 Unfortunately this irnpor~ant means of dating was limited to the Maya lowlands, where such InScriptions were found. Elsewhere in Middle America, there was little in the way of chronology. There was, of course, the Valley of Mexico, where a gross relative chronology had been begun by Gamio, but this ~as the onl y exception. Spin den' s handbook on Mexico, the best syntheSIS for the Mesoamerican area in the 1920s, suffered from this lack of regional chronological information (Spinden, 1928). Although an admirable summary, and one that went beyond sheer description in his concept of an Archaic culture, the attempts to order the various Mesoamerican cultures chronologically were far wide of the mark Forced to operate wholly by conjecture, he surmised, for instance, that Classic Maya civilization had preceded that of Teotihuacan and Monte Alban - placements that have not withstood the tests of further research.

In fact, even as early as the late 1920s, G. C. Vaillant was beginning ~o question Spinden's chronological ordering. Vaillant's own experience III the Valley of Mexico, his work with Maya pottery, the Carnegie Institution's recent diggings in the Maya lowlands3gucketson and Ric~~ etson,19~7;J.E.s. Thompson,1939)and~1hlands, .andAlfonsoCas~ s explorations at Monte Alban in Oaxaca all combmed to suggest SIgnificantly different interpretations from those offered by Spinden. Vaill~t had actually begun such a synthesis in 1927 in an unpu?lish,ed Ph.D_ dissertation (Vaillant, 1927). He went further along these lines ~ a 1935 article, and, in 1941, he gave his ideas detailed expressio~ in his b.ook, Aztecs of Mexico. 39 In this book, he offered an area-wide period ternun~]ogy. He reserved the bottom-most bracket on the time-chart for undisCOVered Paleo-Indian cultures. For the next period, advancing in tim,e, he changed Spinden's name of Archaic to that of Middle Cultures" m recognition of the very ltkely possibility that they were not the earliest on the Mesoamerican scene. Vaillant then applied the names Full Independent Civilizations and Late Independent Civilizations to what are today the Early and Late Classic Periods. For the postclassic, Vaillant used the


Archnie or Middle Culture figurine» from Central Mexico. (These are mare commonly n'ferred to now as Preclassic or Formatioe Period.) Heights (from left to riglzt); 10.3 cm., 13.2 cm., 11.5 em, (From Yaillan! and Vaillant, 1934)


name Mixteca-Puebla Period, after the dominant culture of that time. A spatial-temporal organization of the data Was beginning to take shape, With the perspective of 50 years, we see that the most significant changes have been the downward chronological extension of the Middle (or Preclassic) cultures, the realization of the importance of the Olmee among these, and the identification of Tula, rather than Teotihuacan, with the Toltecs. Of course, radiocarbon dating, which was not available to Vaillant, has deepened the time-scale for the Middle (or Preclassic) cultures well below the 1941 estimate of 200 B.C.

In the eastern United States, a purely taxonomic synthesis, in the manner of the Midwestern Taxonomic Method, had been published by Thome Deuel i.n 1935. Some regional syntheses dealt with chronology, such as those of Parker and Ritchie in New York (Parker, 1922; Ritchie, 1938), Strong's in Nebraska (Strong, 1935), and Setzler's in the northern MissisSip,pi ~ alley (Setzler, 1940). But the first large-scale spatial-temporal orgaruzations of prehistoric Eastern data followed in the wake of the extensive federal-relief-supported surveys and excavations of the 1930s. These were carried out throughout the area by various government-financed a,gencies- WPA, NYA, CCC, and the TVA authority-through cooperative organizations, including the National Park Service, State Park Sen:'ices, museums, univerSities, and other sponsoring groups, Such projects were especially numerous in the southeastern United


85) Total numbers of workmen em-

States (Quimby, 1979; Haag, 19 d' d any young. newly gradu-

d i t th thousan s an m . I

ployed aggre.gate In 0 e ,.'.. h . b training as crew su-

, b ' d their first on-t e-Jo

ated archaeologists 0 tameams Laboratory analyses frequently

pervisors in these federal progr , . ti . iti es and there was fre-

, d wi h fi ld-excavation ac VI , , d

went hand-in-han WIt e h I zists One formalize

.. . g these arc aeo 00• '

quent intercommumcahon amon , th formation of the South-

. . f d t and Ideas was . e A

aspect of this sharmg 0 a a . . h . ts initial meeting at Ann r-

eastern Archaeological Conference, WIt I t meetings in the various

. 38 b t . th subsequen

bor Michigan, in 19 , u WI

'~ .

southern states. , f'gures in bringing about the

B G iff were major I 'h

J, A. Ford and J. ' r .m h t these intensrve arc ae-

. hi hawed so rnuc 0 d d

first area-wide synthesis, w c . d ith G R Willey (For an

O I 1941 For ,WI .' ,

olozical efforts of the 193 s. n, 1 gy an. d culture-classt-

o· a chrono 0 .

Willey, 1941) published an Eastern-arfe th fashion of the Southwest-

. d ewhat a ter e th

ficatory scheme, devise som . . d concept however, ey

. the peno ' f

em Pecos, Instead of emyloym.g s Virtually nothing was known 0

referred, to stages, or slo~mg ~orlZ~~~st at this date (although there w~

Late Pleistocene occupattons m th lai ) 0 this stage was omit

, th estern P ams , S .

important information from t e w. with the ArchaiC, a term

ted from the Ford-Willey synthesis. They beg~nited States to r-efer to

. of the eastern . hro-

then used in some regIOns . . 41 On the extenSIve c .

1 nfarming cultures. .. oint

preceramic, presumab y noruai . di cations as to the ongm P .

nology charts, Ford and Willey gave no In. I . but for the first of their

f Archaic cultures" I W od-

Or direction of movement? all d Burial Mound I (Ear y 0

pottery-making stages, which th~y c, e f cultural diffusion (and pe~land and Adena cultures), the drrection 0 f m south-to-north. SlIm-

, ion) s plotted as ro di Burial

haps population migration wa . les on the succee ing

larly the innovative influences andl~~pewellian cultures), !e~~le M d IT (Middle Woodland an d IT (Late MiSSISSlP-

oun , '. d Temple Moun . S th

Mound I (Early MissiSSIppIan), an . from somewhere in ~he. a.u ,

pian) stages were all though~ of as c~:~~ spreading up the rvI.i~SISSlPP~

(ultimately from Mesoamenca) an more all-embraClng, an

, Th scheme was t I tory

Vaney and its tributanes, e I t only covered more err, _

ambitious than the Pecos chronology. ttnho task of describing the diffu

.' it took on e d it i now clear

and more cultural vanahon, ] s speculative. ,an I 1S E t

. . This last wa , . le The as

SlOnal dynamics for the area: . hed was much too snnpie filled

that the picture Ford and WIney sketc1 lrure zone, which was then f m·

1 w-leve ell 'f ideas ro

was not an empty area, or a 0 1 or diffuslOns 0 t

by successive movements of pe,op eb en demonstrated to have greb3

, . I hassmce e . k.n w that su -

Mesoamerica. Archa.Ic cu ture , hness' and we .. .0 . hi

' t' nand ric . I uch to t s

time-depth, regional va~la 10 'East must have owed .as m that Ford

sequent developmen:ts in the , US Also the estlJIlates

ti intrUSI0. I

heritage as they did to exo c



Orronology chart from Ford and Willey's synthesis of eastern North AmmCQll ardlilrology, Successh'l! stages are indicated will. time-Ing slope follow i r!g tile nutlrors'

irr terpretaticms of the directio« of diJfu~i(m of Iraits. Cul/rl re pl.m~c names are shown, mId IIU' slIIall Ilumbl.'rs in circles rifer to inditndual sites, (From Ford and Willey, 1941)


an~ Willey applied to ,t~eir chronology have been shown by radiocarbon da~g to have been ridiculously late, especially for the earlier stages of their schem:, Nevertheless, the chronological-developmental order of the synthesis proved correct as did most of the if' It it

. . , ' .. . spec IC cu me-urn.

:~sl~ents assocIated with it. A few years later, J. B. Griffin (1946) was pu hs~ another general chronological scheme for the East-using

the ArchaIc-Woodland-Mis' '. ,

, SISSlpplan termmology for his periods and

being much more cautious about the directions of cultural diffusi 42

Togekthfer, these two syntheses provided the larger chronolozical ~:e-

war or archaeolooical di bo 0-

d 0- tscourse a ut the East for the ensuing dec-

a es.

In the Arctic, a number of haeolozi I

1927' Iennes 1928' D L arc aeo ogica excavations (Mathiassen,

of chron I s, 1 'd' be .. ,aguna,.1934; Collins, 1937) oriented to problems

.0 ogy al a asis for ar hesi

synth ., ea synt eSlS. Several syntheses or partial

eses appeared pnor to 1940 a. . . ,

Mathiassen 1934) b tC II' I enness, 1933; Birket-Smith, 1936;

, .ou oms (1940) summ f h d

the most successful and ma . . ary 0 t at ata was perhaps

at the end of the 1 . Y be taken as a summary of what was known ear y part of our Classif

he postulated an ori ' alEskimass Ic~tory-Historical Period, In it,

Strait from Asia at gin unkn a c~ture being brought across the Be. ring

some own time in th F ' .'

he conceived of a s littin -off e past. rom this begmnmg,

Bay I deVelopmenf of so~the;f a Dorset culture ?f the East, a Kachernak an Old Bering Sea ltur T .. A1ask.a, an. Aleutian Islands branch, and

ell . ehe B' . k P

developed out of the Old B . . irrur , . unuk, and Thule cultures later

and then, on a very late r::f ~a cuI~e, Thule first spread eastward give a uniformity to all ~ode°rIC ~onzon, spread back to the West to North. Collins' datin ti rn Esklmoj Aleut/InUit cultures of the Far

g es mates On t f thi

mos 0 S have turned out to be




fairly accurate, The basic Eskimo culture has been pushed back to the third millennium B,C. in the form of Denbigh, and there now are dues to much earlier Eskimo or Denbigh-likecultures as far east as Greenland. Still older lithic cultures have also been discovered in the Arctic. But the picture as seen by Collins in 1940 gave a secure nucleus around which further chronological-distributional findings could be formed.

In the West Indies, Rouse's Haitian investigations provided a core of chronological information around which he constructed a general sequence for most of the Greater Antilles by a series of comparisons (Rouse, 1939). In California, the excavations in the Sacramento Valley began chronology for this area (Heizer and Fenenga, 1939; Heizer, 1941), For the rest of North America in the 1914-40 period, archaeological chronol0§I was still in the future. This was also ~rue for most of South America, In spite of the considerable systematic work that had been carried out by the Argentines and Chileans, there was ~tilllitt1e, or no chronological ordering for these countries.44 An exceptIon was in farsouthern South America, where J. B. Bird had revealed a long sequence going back to a Late Pleistocene horizon and continuing forward in time to the historic period (Bird, 1938, 1946b). This Strai t of Mag~llan sequence was to be most important to American archaeology: for It showed that humans had reached the southern extremity of this hemIsphere at a relatively early time, How early was not known then, b~t,subsequent radiocarbon dates for Bird's earliest period have placed It in the 9000- 8000 s.c range,

Al h '11 alin LLe early Classificatory-

tough area synthesis was the overa go I ill ,

Hi', " I id to interareal relatIon-

stoncal Period, some attention was a so paI

ships, These could hardly be called syntheses, At best, they were attempts

at cultural correlations, usually with an eye toward chronol??y, ,Many

f h " 11 -di tancesimilannesmodd

o t em focused attention on occasiona ong IS,. '

d rt of prehistoric culture

pottery forms or designs that suggeste some so . ,

Contacts,45 Some brought linguistic affiliations and pOSSIble moveme_nalts

f ' 'I iti ' the archaeologtc

o people into the argument to bolster SIllU an res m , , d made

record (Lothrop 1940), Some viewed the data quite cnticaUy an . al

' . b li ble chronologtc

every effort to plot diffusion or trade within e eva . 1 ntrol

limits (PhiUips 1940' Brew 1940), Lack. of absolute chronologtca co

, " , '. . these hypotheses

Was a major stumbling-block in exa.trUJ11I1g or t~stmg ere had been

for Contact (Kroeber, 1940, Table XI).lt was obvIO~s that tho th th-

.. . Middl America north toe sou

currents of influence running from 1 e '.' ' i V lle . but the

Western United States as wen as to .. the. MiSSISSIPPI. .~ . Y('Kr . b r

d d th chaeologlsts oe er,

questions of when, what, and how elu e ear

1930; Kidder, 1936),




The distrib"tioll of Archaic culture i II the A meri cas a..< conceived by Spinden. (From Spinden, 1917)


Actually, the most interesting and fruitful of all of these attempts to correlate or in some way integrate the data of two or more American areas was Spinden's Archaic hypothesis. First enunciated in 1917 (Spinden, 1917) and further elaborated in his handbook of 1928, the Archaic hypothesis had both chronological and developmental implications, Spinden had been inspired by the results of Gamio's Valley of Mexico excavations, which had revealed a simpler culture underneath the re-



-" pper PaleolilhiG or lower

Prima?, Invasion from Asia via Ala",. on u ,

N.aliihic, w ilh.ut agricull ure, potlal)' or loom weav'"1· ISOOD -10000 ac,

, bum civi/izatioll5, T1re establishmen t of

Spmden's conception of the development ofPre-Colum, d /J. 'mary invasion of

.{~- J 'f loo» Spinden date ,re pn

Archaic culture defines tile base or floor oJ me W 11 e V_Y' T1 . obab/ya

, . 000-10,000 B,C. 1lS was pr

the Americas from Asia, via the Bering Strait, at ca. 15, "th' tier was

" . 1I Americanist thlnkmg on IS rna

sheer guess on his part, Ilu t It indicates that not a " hi 'h validated a

, Th F 'II~ Foisom dlscovenes, w !L

folIO'wing Hrdlicka's shortened clirollology, e IggJ. ". . . 1927 5 inden was

1 . .' were published tn .bp

ate Pbstocel1e presence of humans In the Americas, . ' 1928 Handbook, from which

d th rnanu~cnpt for Ius

probably not aware O'f tJrem when fre prepare e·. "

this diagram is taken, (From Spinden, 1928)

, . civilization. This culture had

tnams of the more elaborate Teotihuacan figurines _ and was

competently made pottery - h~d-made potteievidences of farming. further characterized by deep village ref~se ~ were found in other

S ' ,. tt ry and flgunneS ..

Pmden noted that similar po. e him that the later civiliza-

paIts of Mesoamerica, and this suggested to ·t and so forth _ were

t' 'h. Maya Zapo ec, .

ions of Mesoamerica - Teoti uacan, "". from a common Amen-

the regionally specialized developm.ents ansffiAg h 'c Further considera-

, . h h II d the rc al .

can Village farming base, whic e ca e



tions led him to see signs of the Archaic in the American Southwest, ~ Peru, and Argentina. In other words, this Archaic was a kind of Amencan Neolithic. Having its origins in the Valley of Mexico, it had spr~d outward to other parts of the hemisphere from this center a~d .~as, ill this sense, a historically interrelated phenomenon. But its significance was also as an evolutionary stage in the rise of New World civilization. Vaillant, among others, took issue with Spinden (Vaillant, 1934). As cultures contemporaneous with the Valley of Mexico Archaic began to be revealed in other parts of Mesoamerica, it became obvious that m.u:Y of these had quite complex or sophisticated traits that were not found ill the supposed" mother culture" of the Valley of Mexico Archaic. Grad ually, it became clear that Spinden's Valley of Mexico Archaic was a relatively late phase in the development of the Archaic, or Predassic, and that the story of these early, presumably basic, farming cultures was infinitely more complex than he had imagined. In spite of this, Spinden had been on the right track. Certainly, it was on this general time-level of the Archaic, or Predassic, farmers that many fundamental ideas of New World cultures, including agriculture and pottery-making, were transmitted from one to another. Further, such a basic farming condition was also a developmental prerequisite to later cultural elaborations and ci vilizations.

In concluding our brief comments on interareal relationships, this seems an appropriate place to make even briefer comments on the concern with interhemispheric contacts. By this, we do not refer to the ancient Bering Strait crossings of Paleolithic people from Asia to the Americas but rather the possibilities of contacts between later Old World cultures and those of the New. As noted, this was a major theme of archaeology in the Speculative Period, and these concerns persisted into l~ter periods, where they were treated both speculatively and .objectively, Only the latter treatment needs mention here. We have already remarked ~n the Kulturkreislehre claSSificatory approach and have in~icated how it was geared to interhemispheric migration-diffusion studles between the OI~and New W.orlds. Another less programmatic but equally systematIc approach was that of Erland von Nordenskiold- He compiled lists of similar traits from Asia and the New World (Erland von ~ordenskitlld, 1921, 1931). Many of these were of definite Pre-Columbian ,pr.ovenance. Some may have been accidental convergences; oth~rs possibly could have been brought by early immigrants on a Paloolit~CPaleO-Indian level; but others, such as the technique of lost-wax castlllg of ,~etals, were . of a ~o~plexity that suggested later contacts. Nor~enskiold was cautious in his presentations, pushing no particular clauns, FO,r ~he most p:xt, the temper of American archaeologists of the time on . this ISsue Was wait and see:,46


W . tudies in the Classificatory-Descripe left Late Pleistocene human s , 'find had been put

.. f d bt d confusion, Various . s

tive Period ill a state 0 ou an th b is of rather general

. f t age-some on e as

forward as bemg 0 grea ." . ts and some because of

similarity to European Paleohthic Implemen . I ' 1 strata-but

. h PI . t e fauna or goo 0gtca

apparent association WIt elS oc~n . be' truly ancient. The

. d Id b validated as mg

none of these fin s cou e .' d'scoveredchippedstone

breakthrough came in 19~6, wh~nJ. D, FIg~~ 1a geological context of projectile points and extinct bison remains ill Mexico (Figgins, 1927). undisputed Late Pleistocene age at Folsom, New found was a deeply

. , h artif ts and bones were

The stratum In which te acts : f ater hole apparently a

. h ted a ormerw ,

buried day layer, whic . represen. d the 1ar e herbivores when they

site where the ~clent hunter,s kilIe oints of the Folsom site were of came there to drink. The projectile . rved bases and flutings of highly distinctive form, lanceolates Wl . nilar . ts were found

. di very SlIDl ar pom . .

the sides, After the Folsom ISCO ithexti ctfaunal associations in the

similar Pleistocene conditions and w~t e~m d 1935) and at LindenClovis-Portales region of New MeXICO ( owar ,

meier, Colorado (Roberts, 1935b). . ene humans in the Americas

Thus by 1940.' the case for Late Pleistoc .. d f the relativeJy late

' . ted WIS om 0

had become established. The accep hich had doroinated

th N w World scene, W till

entrance of humans on e e . d f llen Age estimates were s

the thinking of the earlier decades: ha fro: 15;000 to 10,000 years. Since geological guesses, generally rangmg



Folsom point and extinct bison ribs in situ. Folsom, New Mexico. (From the Peabody Museum, Harvard University)





then, radiocarbon dates have shortened this somewhat for Clovis-Folso~, although not by very much. Distinctions in typology and differe~tial ages of the various early complexes were then only vaguely discerned. Writing in 1940, Roberts made no formal separation between the.Folsom and Clovis points (Roberts, 1940). Another point, the Yuma, which had fine flaking but no fluting, was thought perhaps to be somewhat later than Folsom. Other early artifact complexes were also known by 1940, including those of Sandia Cave (New Mexico), Gypsum Cave (Nevada), Signal Butte (Nebraska), Clear Fork (Texas), Mojave and Pinto Basin (California), and Cochise (southern Arizona).47 The antiquity of these was implied by typology, geological or faunal assoCiations, cultural stratigraphy, or combinations of these. In the next three decades, some would be validated, some rejected, and others continued in a limbo of debate. Patterns in affiliation" distribution, and chronolOgical placement would emerge; but, as of 1940, it was still too early for this.

The improvement of field methods and techniques continued un~bated into the Classificatory-Historical Period. The necessities of stra-

~graphy furthered this, for one thing, but the more spectacular field FIELD METHODS umovations in the 1914-40 period were in the excavation of features. AND TECHNIQUES In Middle America and, to some extent in the Southwest, what might

be thought of as feature digging or architectural digging developed

from the nature of the remains themselves. The stone-covered pyramids

or plaster-gravel floors of Middle American sites made themselves

known to the uncovering spade in an unambiguous fashion (see Rick-

etson and Ricketson, 1957); they were easy to follow. Southwestern

pueblo walls and floors were similar. But, in the eastern United States,

it was more difficult. Earthen mounds and houses made of wood or

thatch left much less in the way of definite outlines. Archaeologists had

to proceed more cautiously, if they wanted to obtain a proper feature

reCord. At first, this was done by arbitrary control points-surveyed

grids, benchmarks, and the like, from which features were measured

and plotted as the excavation proceeded. Burial mounds were sectioned

by five-foot slices and cross-sectional mound profiles were drawn at

these intervals (s~e Cole and Deuel, 1937). In some .instances, this

probably provided an adequate record, but, in others, It so~n became

obvious that much in the way of former surface features-eIther ~om

SUb-mound levels 0.1." from various buried mound surfaces-was either

being lost or was being made exlTaordinarily difficult to recover by a

SUbsequent piecing together of a series of small vertical-slice records.

EXCIlvutiollS at Lindenmeier, Colorado. in 1937. (From E. N. Wilmscn)

Fluted Folsom points and knic'fS from the Lindenmeier site. (From the Smithsonian institution)



-'7; r- ___
,I.- /, ~~ Ir 11-13 I ...........
'" '\
1/ nH~l' rtfr 1-12
/ I .. I ,
7 \
I 60 \
I ia"~ 1 1-10 \
L"./rt \
I '[10\; , rtt-a ~ 1,,.t:r ... ,\11'l
I / rtf t"./:,·
50 ..... ~
II "'1-6'Il \
(2.:suttt .... ~H
I • I ..... , KJH ,., '''R •
L, .. lV S •
• L3 L' , IJftt-
L , .' ,o-c;
• ~~~I
Jr._. flt-
Jnr.ri-=' /
1\ 135 ~/
rH· ~ Ap~ bo·,,,,·t ed~.
\ ',,'O'Vli .... pf mOl nd-=-';
f' P;'
hn I
\ f1 //
.. c .Ioi' \ J
If ..... ! •. ,
I'\. 1/
" rtt·, /
... ,,, 1.0 .>
'1'---.. _""
, 5
I '"
N ,
0 Clearly, a peeling technique, like that long used in the Old World, in the Middle East, or, to a degree, in Middle America or the Southwest, was called for, and this was soon widely employed in the ~o.rth American East.48 Clay house floors, temple floors, or special buildmg floors were carefully scraped, with diggers following lines o~ soil co~: and texture. Old post holes were revealed, sometimes filled Wl charred burned posts, sometimes marked only by a dark smudg~ of earth where the wood had decayed (a post-mold). Entries, fire-basm~ and oth~r features were dis~losed. These not only gave a better recor d for the field notebook, but It made possible photographs that offere the viewer or reader a much better idea of the feature in question than even the most painstaking descriptions. There was nothing very profound or brilliant about any of this, except that it was to the archaeol~gist's advantage to uncover the diSjOinted fragments of the lost past In such a. way that they could be as fully rearticulated into their original con~tion as possible. At this lowly and mechanical level, these were the first steps on the way to the recovery of context, function, and, hopefully, an understanding of culture process.

A partially excavated Mllya temple. TIle building is the famous

E· VI l-Sub, a late Preclassic stucco-faced pyramid at Uaxactull, Guatemala. TIre Carnegie institution arclwealogists who excavated it it! the late 19205 (Ricketson alia Ricketson, 1937) removed tire overlying fill of the badl,lI damaged later pyramids, tohicl: had been buill over it, to reoeal tire earlier ouitding. TIljS kitrd of architectural digging, by peeling or cleaning hard-surfaced structures, 10115 typical of Middle American archaeology of tire period and still is. (From the Peabody Museum, Harvard University)

Field map of a mound excavation in lIlinois showing the fioe-foo: grid and burial and other features. Such a plan was available at the close of mound-slicing operations (Reprinted from Rediscovering Illinois by Cole and Deuel by permission of the University ofCllicago Press. Copyright 1937)

Mo!md excavation in the eoutheostem Ullited

States - b~'gim!ing the profiling or slicillg of II mound. (From De larnette and Wimberly, 1941)



The technique af dmwitW sail profiles ofa mound with portable string and frame grid (see Webb d

at) ,

De lameue. 1942),


PERIOD (1914-40)


M«p of structure plans. as indicated by post-molds lind other features. 011 mOlmd platform. (From Hiwassee Island by Lewis and Kncberx. reproduced by permissun: of The Ulliversity of Tennessee Press. Copyright © 1970 by The Universihj o/Tennessee Press.)


T his first part of the Classificatory-Historical Period continued strongly in the scientific tradition of the previous period. Facts were gathered and

systematized, and care and exactitude were begilming to be stressed in A P P R A IS A L 0 F field and excavation procedures. S_peculation ®d theory were consid- TRENDS e~ ess synonymous and were tQ_ beeschewed by the respect-

able members o!..!h~rchaeological establi~~ent. The amateur was still

very much a part of the scene; indeed, public interest in archaeology was

growing, especially in the United States; but, in both the United States

and Canada, amateurs were begimling to be brought under the eye of

the professional.

As we have emphasized throughout this chapter, the motif of this

first part of the Classificatory-Historical Period was the establishment of archaeological chronologies. Regions or areas of greater chronological knowledge could be contrasted to those for which data were few, and strategies of continuing research were planned with this in mind.

The massive federaJ-relief-supported archaeology of the 1930s foreshadowed (and probably suggested) the government and industrialsupported salvage archaeology that followed the Second World War. In

. ~ .- -;;---.-:--:-~-.....;..~

Excavation of II Pre-Col . - - • • - • ~ •• ~

T urnblllll hOIl

t Was situated Be structure in T.

slit lik» . on tire top of II flat-topped ennessee, possibly a temple or chief's house.

- 11<£ trenches Ira been . /1U}1I tId. The con t. .

dliffi . 5 disclosed by the' s ruction technique of small poles set ill

erences In soil te tu peelIng Or SC7(1P' .

nea the X re tlnd color have be mg excavatIOn technique, in which

r cen ter Of the b 'Id' en very closely} Il

Knoxv'll ) III mg. (From the D 0 owed. A fire basin Call also fJe seen

I e epartmenf oifA th '

n ropology, UrJiversity afTennessee,




PERIOD (1914-40)

a sense, a trend continues fro thi . .

resource-plaruun' hIm s penod mto the conservation and

g arc aeo ogy of the M d P' d

the federal archaeology of the 1930 . 0 em . eno . Although most of

or economic relief durin the De s w~s conceived as a form of welfare ning to be established t h tresSlOn years, an attitude was beginsomething that deserv'd t cb aeo ogy was a part of the national scene, specifically some parti~ 10 fe dsupported from public funds. Even more

r cu ar e eral pro f h

Tennessee Valley Authority in Te grams 0 t e 19305, those of the

inception a conscious sal ~e~see and Alabama, had from their sites were to be inund t dvaghre objective. Thousands of archaeological

. a e tough new d . .

action on the part of ar hI' am constructions, and swift

c aeo ogists was . .

of them of that period es . 11.. necessary. Credit IS due to many

. . , pecia yW S Webb f thei .

prehistoric heritage of thi '. I or t . err part in saving the

. , s part of th Am ..

constructed for the River B. .. . e . encas .. The model was also

Although this speciir·c s . aSillf salvage pro. grams o. f the 19405 and 19505.

eries a events tai

salvage archaeology ha b per aIDS only to the United States,

most of the Americas. s su sequentIy been a part of efforts throughout

. By 1940, the stage Was set for the a- .

l m the decades aiter th I e archaeologIcal boom that followed

. . e C OSe of W . - -

0.<:: , ... );."" ~...o.J-I\.<..J:l limited in its intellectu I . orld War II. Archaeology., however

h d b a perspectIves it

a egun to put its houso : as 1 may appear from hindsight,

L hi . ouse ill order b d ] .

ls.toncal methodology Th fi Y eve OPIng a descriptive and

. . e eld h db. .

~onsclOu~ness. Precedents had b a ecome more a part of the public

In the UmtedStates and C d· een set for governmental involvement ana a InL· . .

as a pOwerful tourist attra ti '. atinAmenca, archaeology was seen

G t aI CIOn In many .

uarem a, and Peru- d countnes-especially Mexico,

funds diverted to archa anI research benefitted from governmental

hi h . eo ogy to p

g er education and . . romote this purpose. Everywhere

. h Unrversity edu ti . , In arc aeology was apt f ca on was expanding and interest

id 1 ar 0 this m '

VI ua s. w.ould now com . are general expansion More indi-

e Into th fi ld . ~~

research Would be Catrl·ed- - e e :9£ ~merican archaeology' more

d, '. out;andw· h thi - - '

an ~'W attltudes about th bi -- _it this would come ....6W'nuestions

esu~ect. ~.~

3. See Spier (1931); Woodbury (1960a, 1960b).1t should be emphasized, again, that neither Gamio nor Nelson was the first to observe and record cultural superposition in archaeological sites. In the Southwestern area alone, other archaeologists, including Richard Wetherill (see Prudden, 1897), J. W. Fewkes (1912), and Byron Cummings (1910), had made these superpositional discoveries prior to Nelson's or Gamic's work; however, in none of these instances was gradual cultural change plotted by means of stratigraphy. See also Rowe (1975) and Wissler (1921). The latter describes the background to Nelson's work, but we do not see this work as a break with evolutionary thinking, as Rowe does.

4. Uhle's work of 1902 was published in 1907. Kroeber's negative opinion of the results came out in 1909. See Rowe (1962a, pp. 399-400).

5. The importance of chronology seems not to have been stressed in American archaeological writings until after this. An important exception was Edward Sapir's (1916) call for "time perspective" in aboriginal American studies, and, although this article was to have an influence on the course of American archaeology, it was written by a linguist and ethnologist for a more general anthropological readership. Later, in the 1920s and 19305, there were some retrospective reflections on the importance of chronology -and stratigraphy- in American archaeology (see Tozzer. 1920, 1927; Spinden, 1933); these were more enthusiastic than those of ca. 1914.

6. Kidder (1924,1931). The 1931 report was written in collaboration with C. A. Amsden. For a new biography of Kidder, see Givens (1992).

7. Vailiant (1930,1931, 1937). Kroeber (1925c) attempted stratigraphic digging in the Valley of Mexico Archaic sites in 1924. He had little success with sequence in the digging, but, through seriation of several site collections of pottery, he was able to establish a rough chronology of complexes or phases.

B. Webb and De [arnette (1942) is the best published example; however, W. S. Webb's influence on

'. l \.



1. See Rowe (1962a, pp. 339-400)· b

. I ut see also R

(1975) for a different explanan Se OWe

on. e also v __

ber (1909). !"-lue-

2. Gamio (1913); Boas (1913); Tozzer (1915)

Graham (1962) observes that E . J. A.

ngerrand, who

Was trained ..

tumed to M:r.lmanly as a geologist, had just re-

seen rec . t XICO from Europe, where he had

en geol .

tions d·h . and archaeological ex. cava-

, an t. at it IS ib

ideas al . pOSSt Ie that he passed these

ongto Boas.


Southeastern excavations dates back to the 19305.

9. A very "stratigraphy-conscious" article is one by Willey (1939).

10. Woodbury (1960a, 1960b). Uhle's (1907) California shell-mound digging had been by natural strata.

11. See Heizer's (1959, p. 2B2) comments and see also R. H. Thompson's (1955) review of Wheeler (1954).

12. For further details of stratigraphic excavations, see Heizer (1959, pp. 214-343).

13. Kroeber and Strong (1924a). Other publications in this series of studies based on the Uhlecollections include Kroeber and Strong (1924b); Kroeber (1925a, 1925b, 1926); Strong (1925); Gayton

(1927); Gayton and Kroeber (1927).

14. Personal communication from J. A. Ford to G. R.

Willey in the later 1930s.

15. For example, as expressed by Rouse (1967) and Dunnell (1970).

16. Although Rouse (1960) was writing a good many years later, his distinction can certainly be applied in retrospect.

17. Such chronologies were not established until many years later (see M. D. Coe and Baudez, 1961, and Baudez, 1963).

18. See Winifred and H. S. Gladwin (1928a, 1928b, 1930). It should be pointed out, however, that the binomial system of pottery taxonomy was formulated, as a scheme, in the First Pecos Conference on Southwestern Archaeology, held at Pecos, New Mexico, in 1927 (Kidder, 1927).

19. Winifred and H. S. Gladwin (1930). These pottery type procedures were further formulated in the Southwestern conferences, at Pecos again in 1929 and at Gila Pueblo, Arizona, in 1930 (Hargrave, 1932).

20. Ford (1938). Although Ford is best described as the editor of this report, there can be little doubt, in view of the phraseology and idea content, that this and the following quote are directly from him.

21, These first type descriptions were prepared by W. C. Haag.