Introduction to the study of North America archaeology

Introduction

TO THE

BY

PROF. CYRUS THOMAS,

Author of "Report on Mound Explorations" (Twelfth Annual Report of the

Bureau of American Ethnology); "Catalogue of Prehistoric Works East of

the Rocky Mountains"'; "A Study of the Manuscript Troano"; "Burial

Mounds of the Northern Sections of the United States"; "Aids to

the Study of the Maya (-odices"; "Notes on Certain Maya and

Mexican Manuscripts"; "Problem of the Ohio Mounds";

"The Cherokees in Pre-Columbian Times"; etc.

1/

C'oi'YKiGU'r. 189K,

TO

MAJOR JOHN WESLEY POWELL,

To v'}u>se efficient ivork as Director of the Bureau of American Ethnology

student.-i of ethnology are so largely indebted

for (he recent additions made to tlie data relating to North America ;

and to whose aid and encouragement

is mainly due wliaterer success tJie ivrifer may have achieved

in Iiis special line,

By the Author.

Preface

The little volume herewith presented to the public is a brief resume of the progress which has been made, up to the present time, in the investigation and study of North American archaeology. The increased activity among students devoting attention to the subject, the numerous explorations made, the rapid accumulation of data and the flood of light thrown on the questions relating to prehistoric North America since the publication of the last general work relating thereto, call for a new summary. Whether the work now offered meets this demand must be left for the readers to decide. That some parts of the broad field have been left unnoticed is admitted, the attention being confined chiefly to the more important characteristic features, as those best calculated to form an Introduction to the subject ; and as best calculated to interest the reader and younger students. With such an object in view, pages broken or interrupted by foot-notes are not only out of place, but often serve to break the thread the reader is following, or prove an interruption to his line of thought ; reference notes have therefore been entirely omitted.

The opinion held by Maj. J. W. Powell that the vi Preface.

Indians found inhabiting the Atlantic division of North America and their ancestors were the builders of the mounds in that region, which the explorations of the Bureau of American Ethnology under his charge have done much to confirm, has been adopted. And, in general, the conclusions reached by the Bureau of American Ethnology in reference to questions relating to language and archaeology, so far as these extend, have been accepted and used as a basis for further steps in the investigation. But the author alone must be held responsible for any views advanced herein which have not been generally accepted, or in regard to w^iich there are different opinions.

I take pleasure in acknowledging here the favors I have received from Maj. J. W. Powell, Director of the Bureau of American Ethnology, and Prof. W. J. McGee, Ethnologist in Charge, in the use of books, pamphlets and other literary aids needed in my work, and the privilege of obtaining numerous electrotypes of the illustrations herein used, favors, however, which have always been w^illingly extended to all coworkers. I also wish to acknowledge the favors received from Prof. W. H. Holmes, in the privilege of copying illustrations of and profuse borrowing from his late work on the cities of Mexico, published by the Field Columbian Museum ; also to Mr. F. W. Hodge, of the Bureau of American Ethnology, for information communicated and papers furnished relating to the

Preface. vii

Pueblo region. In addition to the illustrations obtained from the Bureau publications, others have been copied from figures in the U. S. Geological Survey, National Museum, etc. Acknowledgment to the various authors from whose works information has been drawn will be found in the text, the authors' names from whose works and papers illustrations have been obtained either directly or indirectly, are added after the numbers in the list of illustrations, the original being referred to where it is possible. The numbers in the list of illustrations not followed by the author's name are either original figures, modifications of other figures, or theoretical restorations by the present writer.

Contents

Preliminary Observations — page

The object, scope and plan of the work 1

Materials for Study and Classification 8

Chapter I. Preliminary Observations

Archaeology in its widest sense and by derivation includes the investigation of the origin, language, beliefs, customs, arts — every thing, in a word, that can be learned of the ancient life of a people. It is in this sense that it is used in the title of this work, and not in the more limited scope to which its modern use has a tendency to restrict it, notwithstanding the efforts of lexicographers to retain its original meaning. The work is intended really as an introduction to the study of prehistoric North America, of the people as well as the monuments. To gather and describe antiquities, although thoroughly and intelligently done, is by no means all of archaeology. True, these are to archaeology what the unfashioned and unadjusted materials of which the house is to be built are to the house, but they are not the house. The monuments ) are the tombs of past ages ; the work of archaeology / in its broad sense is to revivify the dead, to put life j into the past, and, so far as possible, to bring before 1 the mind the ancient people with their activities, characteristics and customs. In other words, the chief object in view in the study of archaeology is the man of b3^gone ages. It is with this idea in view that this Introduction to the Study of North American Archaeology has been written, but only as an introduction^ for the field is too broad to be covered in one small volume.

The problems which confront the student of Ameri« can archaeology are exceedingly difficult, and some of them seemingly beyond the possibility of solution because of the sheer break between the historic and prehistoric eras. Omitting the discovery of Greenland and possibly the north-east coast of the continent by the Northmen in tlie tenth or eleventh century, w^hich left no impress, tlie history of the western w^orld begins w^ith the discovery of the West Indies by Columbus in 4492 ; all that lie back of that date belong to the prehistoric era, a gloom, so to speak, unlightened by a single deciphered page of history. In the Old World there are few regions in regard to whose past there are no recorded hints w^hich can be used as stepping stones in the backward march ; in other words, history and prehistory are dovetailed, so to speak, one with another, but not so in the New World.

These difficulties have possibly caused more than one student to feel as Palgrave, who, in apparent despair over the unsatisfactory results of the efforts, up to his day, to lift the veil Avhich shuts out the past, exclaims : "We must give it up, that speechless past; whether fact or chronology, doctrine or mythology ; whether in Europe, Asia, Afi'ica or America ; at

Preliminary Observations. 3

Thebes or Palenque, on Lyciaii shore or Salisbur}^ Plains; lost is lost, gone is gone forever." But a different spirit animates the students of the present day, the very difficulties in the way are themselves so many incentives to attacks. What seemed beyond human reach to the London antiquary and historian sixty years ago, is deemed by scholars of the closing years of the nineteenth century to be, in a large degree, attainable. The veil, which Palgrave looked upon as fixed and immovable, has been lifted at numerous points and rays of light let in upon the past. Some of the problems which were, fifty years ago, yea, but twenty-five, deemed impossible of solution, have been satisfactorily solved, and have now become foundation stones in the archaeological structure.

It is true, as Sir John Lubbock remarks : "In attempting to reconstruct the story of the past, students have too often allowed imagination to usurp the place of research, and have written in the spirit of the novelist rather than in that of the philosopher." The hundreds of dust-covered works on the subject of pre- Columbian America, and the origin of its people, which now lie, well nigh forgotten, on the shelves of libraries, bear testimony to the truth of this remark, as do also the numerous discarded theories relating thereto. Nevertheless theories will continue to be advanced, indeed must be if progress is made in the study of the past, especially where so many links of the chain are still wanting as in American archaeology. The investigating spirit of the age will not brook delay ; wherever there is an unbroken field some scientific plow is sure to enter, though but poorly equipped for the work. However, of late years more

4 Study of North Americaii Archaeology .

strict methods of approaching the many problems involved have been introduced, and now, instead of attempting by imagination or theorizing to reach conclusions at once, slow and patient investigation is the process pursued. The spade has to a large extent replaced the pen, and instead of building theories chiefly by imagination, there is a careful sifting of all the evidence which appears to have any bearing on the subject. The fragments of data are fitted together and tentative theories deduced simply as a plan of further progress, often however to be cast aside or modified, as new material, which will not readily drop into place, is discovered.

As no intelligent student will continue his investigations of the ancient monuments for any considerable length of time without forming theories in regard to the uses, age and authors of the works examined, it is all important to his progress to know which of the questions that arise have been completely or partially answered, and to ascertain which of the numerous theories advanced in regard to the various questions have been definitely eliminated by universal consent from the class possessing elements of possibility. This knowledge will clear from his pathway much of the rubbish which would otherwise encumber it. Another important point is to know the lines along which the opposing views are being pushed by their respective advocates. Although it is undoubtedly the part of wisdom to hold in restraint the disposition to theorize, this knowledge directs the careful student's attention to numerous points which might otherwise be, overlooked in his investigations. It is for this reason that the author of this little work has ventured

Preliminary Observations. 5

to briefly outline the theories relating to some of the more important problems which must confront the student of American archaeology. The chief object, however, will be to present the data, and to arrange them so as to afford the student some means of bringing into harmony and utilizing his facts and materials. But as it is manifestly impossible to present in a single small volume a full account of the archaeologic remains of the continent, and discuss all the questions which arise in connection therewith, only those considered the best representatives of the leading types and those which best illustrate the art, customs and culture status of the former inhabitants will be referred to.

The writer, as those who peruse this work will observe, has not entered into a discussion of the question of the so-called paleolithic age, or glacial man in America, for the reason that he does not believe the evidence on which the theory is based, as yet sufficient to justify its acceptance. The results of the more recent investigations in America, or at least North America, all tend in the other direction. One by one the strongholds of the advocates are being overturned, and the evidence on which the theory is based discounted. The author feels constrained to the belief that peopled America though old in years bears nowhere such marks of antiquity as are to be found in some parts of the Eastern Continent. To accept tlie antiquity which has been assigned by the advocates of this theory to the early inhabitants would, as the writer thinks, require in order to be consistent an entire recasting of all the more stable theories which have been propounded. "Paleolithic" as a descriptive term is of minor importance, but as a theory which would carry back the presence of man in America to that immensely distant era which has been assigned is a very different thing.

Mr. Keary remarks in the opening paragrapli of the second chapter of his "Dawn of History" that "Between the earlier and later stone age, between man of the drift period and man of the neolithic era occurs a vast blank which we can not fill in. We bid adieu to the primitive inhabitants of our earth while they are still the contemporaries of the mammoth and woolly rhinoceros, or of the cave lion and the cave bear, and while the very surface of the earth wears a different aspect from what it now wears. With a changed condition of things, with a race of animals which differed not essentially from those known to us, and with a settled conformation of lands and seas not again to be departed from, comes before us the second race of man — man of the polished stone age." It is true that it is claimed by some European authors that this hiatus is not so real as it at first appears to be, and that it has been partially bridged over by some recent finds. But the effort to bridge the chasm shows too clearly to be misunderstood that it is there, and so long as it remains unclosed is a weak point, if not fatal flaw, in the theory.

We accept as correct the idea advanced by Mr. A. H. Keane in his "Ethnology," that appeal to traditional movements and other traditional data will have no bearing upon the question of the origin of the people of America unless paleolithic man in America is abandoned. So believing, though we do not propose to discuss this question of the original peopling

Preliminary Observations. 7

of the continent, we put aside glacial or paleolithic man of America as yet wanting in the credentials which entitle him to a place in scientific circles.

The history of the western continent is supposed to hegin with its discovery by Columbus at the close of the fifteenth century, all that antedate that event being considered prehistoric. While this is true in the broad and general sense in which it is used, yet, strictly speaking, the history of the different sections begins with the first knowledge of them obtained by Europeans. Hence the border line between the historic and prehistoric eras varies in date according to the section referred to. The Ohio valley, for example, was terra incognita to the civilized world for a century after Cortez entered the capital of Anahuac. That which lies back of this border line belongs to the prehistoric era, and the student who would penetrate the mystery of that past must examine and carefully study the monuments ; listen to the traditions which have floated down the ages ; gather the folk-lore tales ; and compare the customs, arts, and beliefs of the tribes as first seen and learned. He must study the native form and lineaments, and trace by linguistic evidence the relationship of tribes and groups ; for in America there is no scaffolding of history to assist him as in the Old World. The transition from the prehistoric to the historic was, from the very nature of the case, sudden, there being no true proto-historic period.

CHAPTER 11.

MATERIALS FOR STUDY CLASSIFICATION.

When Columbus sailed among the Antilles, Cortez landed on the coast of Mexico, when Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence and De Soto traversed the Gulf States, each and all found the regions they visited inhabited by people of a race different from any known to the eastern continent. The discoveries which followed brought to light the fact that the lake region and the Mississippi valley were inhabited by people of the same race. Whence they came, and how long they had inhabited these regions — in other words what was their history — could not be ascertained, as they possessed no historical records save a few symbolic rolls and inscriptions which are as 3^et sealed books to scientists. The dim and shadowy traditions which they related to the European discoverers were so confused and, in most cases, so fabulous as to throw but little light on these questions. And what was found to be true of the regions mentioned was found to be true in a general sense of the entire continent. \The most important variation discovered was the evidence of more advanced culture in certain areas, as Mexico, Central America, and Peru J The people, however, though split into numerous stocks and tribes, and differing in minor respects, belonged apparently to the same race, its members being popularly known as "Indians" or "American Indians."

In these facts we have one fundamental point with which no correct conclusion in regard to the prehistoric times of the continent can be at variance. The natives were here and must be recognized by every theory, must be a factor in every general conclusion.

The chief fundamental factor in the study of archaeology is found in the monuments. *'The teachings of material relics," truly remarks one author, "so far as they go, are irrefutable. Ileal in themselves, they impart an air of reality to the study of the past." These are indisputable products of human activity, and have imprinted upon them, as it were, the ideas and conceptions of a bygone age. They are records in which we may read not only the culturestatus of that past age, but also much in regard to the customs and beliefs of the people. For these reasons attention is directed to them as the chief foundation stones on which our archaeological structure must be built.

Although the monuments furnish the chief and most reliable data to the archaeologist, and throw more light on the customs, arts and beliefs of tlie people, and reveal more in regard to the life of the individual and family than any other aids, they are not the only helps he finds in his endeavor to penetrate the unwritten past. Language, which is also reliable, enables him to determine the affinity of tribes and peoples. By this means he can often say with positive certainty that widely separated tribes or groups have, in the past, sundered relations with the great body of their kindred and sought distant homes. He has ascertained by this means tliat the

Apaches and Navajos of New Mexico, Arizona, and Northern Mexico are offshoots from the great Athapascan family of Northern British America, and that the Arapahos and BLackfeet Indians of the western plains arc members of the Algonquian stock which spread oyer North America from the Atlantic coast to the Rocky Mountains. Thus he is enabled to trace with more or less accuracy the lines of prehistoric migration, and outline the general trend in ancient movements of j)opulation.

Traditions, although less reliable than the monuments and language, furnish some data to the archaeologist which frequently serve to explain otherwise uncertain evidence, and lead to satisfactory conclusions. Folk-lore, mythology and customs sometimes indicate former contact or relationship not otherwise revealed, and explain many otherwise puzzling monuments and relics. Craniology is strongly appealed to by European ethnologists as an important factor in this study, but the results so far obtained, except in cases of artificial pressure, are too unsatisfactory to justify its use except in broad generalizations, and then only as cumulative evidence. This, the writer is well aware, is in conflict with the views of a number of leading ethnologists ; nevertheless he feels justified in making this statement deliberately to the younger students of American archaeology.

The wide differences in many respects between the monumental remains of the Old World and those of the New,, and also between the data relating thereto, call for a widely different method of study. Even the classification and nomenclature of the former are not adapted to the latter. The arrangement into four classes or ages — the Paleolithic, Neolithic, Bronze and! Iron — is conceded to be inapplicable to America. ; Evidence of the two stone ages may possibly be founds I though still denied by a number of our leading , archaeologists, and a copper age may be substituted | for the bronze, but tlie similarity will extend no further. ^The use of iron as a metal w^as unknown in America previous to the discovery by Columbus, i. Copper was used to a limited extent, but it is extremely doubtful whether the method of manufacturing bronze had been discovered at any point on the continent. Stone was the chief reliance until the in-J troduction of European implements. The archaeologic remains of the former, taken as a whole, are so widely different from those of America, that the nomenclature of the one, except as applied to some of the ruder objects, is totally inapplicable to those of the other. It has therefore been found necessary, in studying the archaeology of America, to proceed upon an independent line and to adopt an original basis and a new nomenclature.

Although this limits the range of any classificatory system which may be attempted, it falls far short of doing away with the difficulties the American archaeologist is compelled to encounter. Not only is he confronted by the fact, as apparent in the Old World as in the New, that archaeology, even where it has been longest studied, has not reached that stage where it may be termed a true science, the general principles of which by modification may apply to any section or country, but also by a multiplicity of objects so variant in form and character, and usuallv in such a fragmentary condition as, without a knowledge of their uses, to baffle his attempts at a systematic classification. NadaiHac, alluding to the various forms of American antiquities, remarks that "these facts will show how very difficult, not to say impossible, is any classification," a statement which any one who attempts a systematic arrangement will be disposed to accept as true. When dealing with a limited area where the types are somewhat similar, classification to some extent is possible and advantageous, but the attempt to apply it to the entire continent will prove abortive. However, as some grouping is necessary in order to facilitate reference and comparison, in the absence of a scientific arrangement we must have recourse to an arbitrary scheme. As the author has as yet seen no better arrangement of primary groups than that suggested in his "Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of American Ethnology," jDublished in the 12th Annual Report of the Bureau, it is adopted here.

By this the objects are divided, in a broad and comprehensive sense, into three classes.

1. Monuments (in the limited sense) , or local antiquities. This division or class includes all those antiquities that are fixed or stationary, which necessarily pertain to a particular locality or place.

^. Relics and Remains, or movable antiquities. Those not fixed and which have no necessary connection with a particular locality.

S. Palcographic Objects. Inscriptions, picture writings, etc., whether on fixed or transportable objects.

This is, of course, an arbitrary arrangement, the third group being unnecessary except as a matter of convenience ; however it appears to be a practical working system by which the lines of distinction are somewhat rigidly drawn. Moreover it is adapted to the two methods of investigation and study, viz., in the field and in the museum, and is in line with Dr. Moriz Hoernes' suggestion that, in studying archaeological objects, attention should be given to the "Typographic and Museographic order."

The first class does not appear to be susceptible of arrangement into satisfactory primary divisions. The only plan which as yet seems possible is to arrange them by types, chiefly according to form, where the object and use are not apparent, or known.

The objects of the second class may be grouped into two divisions : 1. Remains, including human and animal remains ; 2. Relics, including all other movable antiquities. The further division of the second group is largely typological, reference being made to use so far as this is evident.

Partly because of the diihculties in the way of a satisfactory and useful classification, and partly because the chief object of archaeologic investigations is to learn what is possible in regard to the life, character, activities and racial affinity of the former inhabitants of given sections, it has been found most advantageous to study the monuments according to the culture areas, so far as these can be determined approximately from the data which have been obtained.

As it is practically impossible to make any satisfactory classification of the antiquities of the whole continent, further than into the primary classes mentioned above, the order followed herein will, as above intimated, be geographical rather than typological.

The divisions will be made to correspond, so far as the data enable us to judge, to the culture areas. But the attempt to mark the culture areas, except as to the three primary divisions mentioned below, can only be partially carried out, hence the subdivisions must be considered as chiefly geographical and intended more as a matter of convenience and comparison than as archaeological. Nevertheless that there are several culture areas, both in the Atlantic and Pacific divisions, which will be ultimately determined and outlined, is undoubtedly true. It is also true that, even with the data which have been obtained, some of these areas are quite clearly indicated, though they can not be mapped with boundary lines.

The tendency of the present day is to base the efforts to arrange the native population into ethnic groups on the linguistic evidence alone, leaving out of view the important aid in tracing the development of these groups to be derived from a careful study of the archaeological data, or referring to them only when they can be used to confirm the theories based on the linguistic evidence. This arises in part from the fact that, while the archaeological data relating to a large portion of the continent are few, and that archaeology can not, as yet, be considered a true science ; on the other hand the linguistic material, although not complete, is much more abundant, and the treatment thereof reduced to true scientific methods. As the latter field affords greater promise of reaching positive conclusions, it is more attractive to methodical students.

As the discussion of this subject from the linguistic standpoint is necessarily based upon the study of the various linguistic stocks and families of the entire continent, and, to some extent, upon the migrations therein, so the discussion of the same questions from the archaeological standpoint must be based upon the study of the various types and their distribution over the continent. And the same necessity for grouping in some manner arises here as in the linguistic field. xVlthough the materials with which the antiquarian has to deal are not so well defined and distinctly classed as those with which the philologist is concerned, yet careful study and comparison will enable him to note the differences, geographical and to some extent ethnical. The indications of comprehensive archaeological sections as marked by differences in type are too apparent to be denied, and there are also indications of minor districts. The chief drawback in attempting to use these as evidences of ethnic distinctions arises from several causes — uncertaintv as to what types are wholly due to physical conditions and what are tribal or ethnic ; also from a lack of material for comparison ; the overlapping and intermingling of types in consequence of the shifting of position by tribes ; and lastly the fact that types of art are not governed strictly by ethnic lines. Nevertheless race characteristics and tribal customs impress themselves to a certain extent under all variations in location and condition, upon the works and art of people in a savage or semi-civilized state. For instance, although the Mexicans and Mayas lived side by side, and used the same calendar system and the same method of enumeration, yet we notice marked differences between their symbolic writings and their types of art. We also notice in the mound section tlie wide differ-

16 Studi/ of iSorth American Archaeology .

ence between the mound types of Wisconsin and the other portions of the Mississippi valley. However, it is difficult with the data so far obtained to fix correctly the boundaries of the different culture districts.

Although we meet with this difficulty in defining geographically the boundaries of the districts and more comprehensive sections, it does not prevent us from drawing correct conclusions from their general positions and peculiar types. That all the distinguishing types of a district or section can not be attributed to the peculiar physical features of such districts or sections must be admitted. Will any one claim that the vast difference between the archaeologic types of Mexico and Wisconsin have resulted wholly from the physical differences of the two areas? If not, it follows, though physical environment is a potent influence in the formation of types, that so much as has not resulted from physical peculiarities must be attributed to racial or tribal customs. Yet the powerful influence of physical conditions must not be overlooked.

A careful examination of what has been ascertained in regard to North American archaeology, with special reference to the question of archaeologic sections, leads in the first place to the conclusion that the ancient remains belong in a broad and comprehensive sense to two general classes. One of these classes is limited geographically to the Atlantic slope, the other chiefly to the Pacific slope, the eastern or Rocky mountain range of the great continental mountain belt to the Rio Grande forming approximately the dividing line between the^two areas. According to this division, the Atlantic section includes that part of the continent east of the Rocky Mountains and north of the Gulf of Mexico except the Dene or northern Athapascan region, and the Pacific section the remainder from ALaska to the Isthmus of Panama, inchiding tlie Athapascan territory. The arctic region, or Eskimo area, which is not taken into consideration here, forming a separate division.