The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology

Author(s): Julian H. Steward

Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Apr., 1942), pp. 337-343
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/275399
Accessed: 13-06-2018 16:38 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to American Antiquity

This content downloaded from 34.195.88.230 on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:38:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A MERICAN ANTIQUITY
VOL. VII APRIL, 1942 No. 4

THE DIRECT HISTORICAL APPROACH

TO ARCHAEOLOGY

JULIAN H. STEWARD

J N RECENT years considerable attention has been given to theoreti-

1cal statements and to concrete applications of what is called the
"taxonomic method" in archaeology. Although this method is not neces-
sarily in conflict with the direct historical approach to archaeology, a
growing preoccupation with the former has definitely been at the ex-
pense of the latter. The direct historical approach, although employed
more or less for many years, has not received formulation comparable
to that of the taxonomic method, nor have its potentialities for planned
research programs and its possible integration with recent types of his-
torical ethnographic research received full recognition. Even, therefore,
if it is unnecessary to argue its value, it seems timely to attempt a
statement that may help clarify its procedures and research possibilities.
Methodologically, the direct historical approach involves the ele-
mentary logic of working from the known to the unknown. First, sites
of the historic period are located. These are preferably, but not neces-
sarily, those of identifiable tribes. Second, the cultural complexes of
the sites are determined. Third, sequences are carried backward in time
to protohistoric and prehistoric periods and cultures. This approach
has the crucially important advantage of providing a fixed datum point
to which sequences may be tied. But, far more important than this, it
provides a point of contact and a series of specific problems which will
coordinate archaeology and ethnology in relation to the basic problems
of cultural studies.
The direct historical approach to archaeology was first deliberately
used in the Southwest about 1915 by Nelson, Kidder, Spier, and Kroe-
ber' and in New York State by Parker and Harrington about the same
time.2 In areas like the Southwest and Middle America, where many of
the more conspicuous sites were only recently abandoned and where a
connection between historic and prehistoric cultures was obvious, it
was almost an inevitable approach. In all these areas, it was possible

I Nelson, 1916; Kidder, 1916. See also, Kidder, 1924, pp. 84-95; Spier, 1917; Kroeber,
1916.
2 Parker, 1916; Also, Parker and Harrington, 1922.

337

This content downloaded from 34.195.88.230 on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:38:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 338 A MERICA N A NTIQUITY [4, 1942

to start with historic sites and, through stratigraphy, or seriation,3 or

both, to carry sequences backward beyond the point where the trails
of the known, historic peoples faded out.
Despite this fruitful beginning, the full value of the direct historical
approach seems not to have been recognized until much later. It is, in
fact, a striking commentary on the divergent interests of archaeology
and ethnology that in the Southwest the gap represented by the four
hundred years of the historic period remained largely unfilled, while
archaeology devoted itself mainly to prehistoric periods, and ethnology,
to the ceremonialism and social organization of the modern Pueblo. And
yet it was during this four hundred years that the Pueblo had contacts
with one another, with the nomadic and seminomadic tribes, and with
the Spaniards, that account for much of their present culture. There
are only a few happy exceptions to the general indifference toward this
period.4 Similarly, interest in New York seems recently to have drifted
away from problems of history to those of taxonomy.5
In most areas, use of the direct historical approach was delayed
because historic sites were difficult to find or because other practical
considerations interfered or simply because attention had been directed
away from problems involving history or ethnology. For the Southeast,
however, Swanton had assembled documentary evidence on the location
of many sites of historic tribes.' Following his leads, Collins identified
Choctaw pottery in 19257 and other historic wares were subsequently
determined by several workers, especially Ford, Willey, and Walker.
Ford has now succeeded in carrying a sequence for the lower Mississippi
Valley back from the historic tribes through several prehistoric periods.8
Meanwhile, sequences have also been established through use of the
direct historical approach by Strong and Wedel in the Plains,9 by

3This method was employed by Kidder in the Rio Grande valley (1915), and was
stated more explicitly by Spier (1917).
4For example, A. V. Kidder's long and detailed studies of the historic Pueblo of
Pecos, now published in full; F. W. Hodge's partially published studies of Hawikuh, an
old Zufii site, and J. 0. Brew's recent excavations of Awatobi, an old Hopi village. E. C.
Parsons has called attention to some of the types of study that will help relate archaeo-
logical and ethnological data in the Southwest (1939, Vol. 2, p. 1212 and 1940).
6 W. N. Fenton (1941) showed the possibilities for use of the direct historic approach
to archaeology in the Iroquois area and assembled abundant materials (1940) that
could be used for this approach.
6 Contained in many of Swanton's works. For his complete bibliography, see Swan-
ton, 1940, pp. 593-600.
T Collins, 1927.
8 See the summary in Ford and Willey, 1940.
The latest summaries are Strong, 1940, and Wedel, 1940.

This content downloaded from 34.195.88.230 on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:38:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
STEWARD] DIRECT HISTORICAL APPROACH TO ARCHAEOLOGY 339

Collins in the Arctic,'0 by Parker and Ritchie in New York," and else-
where. In short, history is being rapidly blocked out and it is now be-
coming possible to describe archaeological materials in terms of time
and space, the first elementary step toward understanding culture
change.
The northern Mississippi Valley has yielded less readily to the direct
historical approach. But it is hoped that the ethnographic survey of
historical documents being made by Kinietz and Tucker will provide
information on historic sites which will facilitate use of this approach.
Meanwhile, the archaeological data of this, and, to some extent, other
areas, are being arranged according to the taxonomic scheme. Basing
classification solely on the association of cultural elements, the result is
a set of timeless and spaceless categories. Whatever use may be made
of these materials, it is to be hoped that the effort to pigeonhole cultural
materials by any non-historical scheme will not direct attention too far
away from historical problems, which are surely the most important
consideration of archaeology. Furthermore, where history has already
been blocked out, it is difficult to see what is gained by scrapping a
scheme with historical terms and categories in favor of a non-historical
one.
The direct historical approach is not only crucially important in as-
certaining cultural sequences, but, integrated with recent endeavors in
ethnology, it has a tremendous potential value to the more basic prob-
lems of anthropology. Too often, these problems have been obscured by
immediate tasks; techniques and procedures have loomed as ultimate
goals. Ethnology tends to ignore the results of archaeology, while ar-
chaeology, concentrating on its techniques for excavation and its meth-
ods for description and classification of the physical properties of arti-
facts, comes to consider itself a "natural," a "biological," or an "earth
science" rather than a cultural science. It is too often forgotten that
problems of cultural origins and cultural change require more than
ceramic sequences or element lists.
If anything characterizes historical anthropology today, it is a recog-
nition that valid theories which generalize data of cultural change,
process, or dynamics must be based on gradually accumulating infor-
mation about the specific circumstances which surround particular
events. To the extent, therefore, that archaeology can deal with specific
problems of specific peoples, tracing cultural changes, migrations, and
other events back into the protohistoric and prehistoric Deriods while
10 Collins, 1940, and earlier works.
11 Parker, 1916. Ritchie, 1932; this preceded the interest in taxonomy.

This content downloaded from 34.195.88.230 on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:38:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
340 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [4, 1942

ethnology traces them forward to the present day, it will contribute to

the general problem of understanding cultural change. Its data can be
handled directly for theoretical purposes; there is no need for taxonomy.
A few illustrations will suffice to demonstrate the value of the direct
historical approach to these basic problems. Using it in the Plains,
Strong put the cultures of the area in a new light. Tracing changes in
the culture of known, historic tribes back through the protohistoric into
the prehistoric period, he showed that the Plains had not been a basi-
cally bison-hunting area with a few anomalous, horticultural tribes, as
had been generally assumed, but that it had formerly been in large part
horticultural. A pronounced shift to hunting had followed the introduc-
tion of the horse. This new picture of the Plains required drastic re-
vision of ecological and other theories previously held concerning it. In
Alaska, Collins' direct historical approach to Eskimo archaeology re-
vealed a long, local development of Eskimo culture which required new
interpretations of Eskimo cultural origins and migrations. In the South-
west, the light thrown on Pueblo cultural origins by this approach is too
well known to need comment.
On many other similar problems, work has only started. The Navajo
and Apache, for example, are obviously Canadian in language though
not in culture. Speculation about their cultural origins, their migrations,
and their role, if any, in the retraction of the Pueblo area after about
1000 or 1100 A.D. has been almost futile. It is a job for the direct
historical approach to Navajo archaeology, which has just begun.
Similarly, the question of the relationship of the Iroquois to south-
eastern ethnic and archaeological groups and to Ohio archaeological
complexes will be definitively solved only when archaeology has suc-
ceeded in tracing the different Iroquoian peoples deeper into the past.
The distribution of Siouan peoples in the Plains and in the east also
indicates the need of tracing both groups back to the area where they
formed a single group and even suggests where ancient Siouan remains
are likely to be found.
There are also problems connected with the introduction of new
European culture elements during the protohistoric or early historic
period that archaeology can help solve. We know much about the effect
of the horse. But what about the gun, the steel trap, new trade relations,
tribal dislocations and other factors coming directly or indirectly from
the white man? It is certain that in many cases these produced revolu-
tionary changes in economy, village types, village distributions, migra-
tions, tribal contacts and other features which would afford information
basic to studies of culture change. The archaeology of early historic

This content downloaded from 34.195.88.230 on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:38:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
STEWARD] DIRECT HISTORICAL APPROACH TO ARCHAEOLOGY 341

sites would also help enormously to correct ethnography's attempts to

reconstruct pre-contact cultures.
Every tribe in the country cannot, of course, be traced through its
archaeology. But a great number of problems can be solved by combin-
ing data derived from ethnography and from historical documents with
the results of the direct historical approach in archaeology. In fact, if
one takes cultural history as his problem, and peoples of the early historic
period as his point of departure, the difference between strictly archae-
ological and strictly ethnographical interest disappears. Archaeology
supplements the cultural picture drawn from historic documents and
informant testimony. Ethnography explains archaeological materials in
their cultural context. And where archaeology traces changes backward
into the past, ethnography may trace them forward. It seems certain
that historical acculturation studies, such as Keesing's Menomini
monograph,"2 which traces cultural changes through the three centuries
of the post-contact period and might be called the direct historical
approach to ethnology, are destined to find an important place in an-
thropological literature. Studies of this kind will overlap with and be
tremendously facilitated by direct historical studies in archaeology.
Whether the objective of cultural studies is a broad cultural se-
quence or detailed information on the history of a specific people, the
contributions of archaeology will be more or less proportionate to its
success in using the direct historical approach. This approach will serve
to remind both archaeologists and ethnologists that they have in com-
mon not only the general problem of how culture has developed but a
large number of very specific problems. If archaeology feels that apply-
ing itself to cultural rather than to "natural history" problems seems to
relegate it to the position of the tail on an ethnological kite, it must
remember that it is an extraordinarily long tail. Vaillant has said: "Un-
less archaeology is going definitely to shift from a branch of anthro-
pology to an obscure type of mathematics, an effort must be made to
relate the rhythms of cultural development with the pulsations of an
evolving human society.""3 This requires a perception of problems that
involve more than the physical features of material object, Lare chron-
ologies, or even classifications.
12 Keesing, 1939. Kinietz, 1940, also recognizing the importance of distinguishing
Indian cultures at different periods within historic times, has ransacked the early litera-
ture for information on culture immediately following contact with Whites. It is of some
interest that South Americanists, perhaps because most of them have in the past been
Europeans and traditionally have devoted more effort to library studies, have made far
greater use of old sources than North American ethnologists.
13 Vaillant, 1935, p. 304.

This content downloaded from 34.195.88.230 on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:38:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 342 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [4, 1942

BIBLIOGRAPHY

COLLINS, H. B., JR.

1927. "Pothsherds from Choctaw Village Sites in Mississippi." Journal of the
Washington Academy of Science, Vol. 17, pp. 259-263.
1940. "Outline of Eskimo Prehistory." In Essays in Historical Anthropology
of North America. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 100.
FENTON, W. N.
1940. "Problems Arising from the Historic Northeastern Position of the Iro-
qouis." In Essays in Historical Anthropology of North America. Smith-
sonian Miscellaneous Collections 100.
1941. Review of Roebuck Prehistoric Village Site, Grenville County, Ontario,
W. J. Wintemberg, AMERICAN ANTIQUITY, Vol. 7, pp. 290-294.
FORD, J. A. and GORDON WILLEY
1940, Crooks Site, a Marksville Period Burial Mound in La Salle Parish, Louisi-
ana. State of Louisiana, Department of Conservation, Anthropological
Study No. 3.
KEESING, F. M.
1939. The Menomini Indians of Wisconsin. American Philosophical Society,
Memoir 10.
KIDDER, A. V.
1915. Pottery of the Pajarito Plateau and of Some Adjacent Regions in New Mexico.
American Anthropological Association, Memoir 2, No. 6.
1916. "Archaeological Explorations at Pecos, New Mexico." Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science, Vol. 12, pp. 119-123.
1924. Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology. New Haven.
KINIETZ, W. V.
1940. The Indians of the Western Great Lakes, 1615-1760. University of Michi-
gan, Occasional Contributions, Museum of Anthropology, No. 10.
KROEBER, A. L.
1916. Zuni Potsherds. Anthropological Papers, American Museum of Natural
History, Vol. 18.
NELSON, N. C.
1916. "Chronology of the Tano Ruins, New Mexico." American Anthropologist,
Vol. 18, pp. 159-180.
PARKER, A. C.
1916. Excavations in an Erie Indian Village and Burial Site at Ripley, Chautau-
qua County, New York. New York State Museum, Bulletin 117.
PARKER, A. C. and M. R. HARRINGTON
1922. Archaeological History of New York. New York State Museum, Bulletins
235-236.
PARSONS, ELSIE CLEWS
1939. Pueblo Indian Religion. Chicago.
1940. "Relations between Ethnology and Archaeology in the Southwest."
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY, Vol. 5, pp. 214-220.
RITCHIE, W. A.
1932. "The Algonkin Sequence in New York." American Anthropologist, Vol.
34, pp. 406-414.
SPIER, LESLIE
1917. An Outline for a Chronology of Zuni Ruins. Anthropological Papers,
American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 18.

This content downloaded from 34.195.88.230 on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:38:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
STEWARD] DIRECT HISTORICAL APPROACH TO ARCHAEOLOGY 343

STRONG, W. D.
1940. "From History to Prehistory in the Northern Great Plains." In Essays
in Historical Anthropology of North America. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections 100.
SWANTON, JOHN R.
1940. Bibliography of-, In Essays in Historical Anthropology of North America.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection 100.
VAILLANT, G. C.
1935. Early Cultures of the Valley of Mexico: Results of the Stratigraphical Proj-
ect of the American Museum of Natural History in the Valley of Mexico,
1928-1933. Anthropological Papers, American Museum of Natural History,
Vol. 35
WEDEL, W. R.
1940. "Culture Sequence in the Central Great Plains." In Essays in Historical
A nthropology of North A merica, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection 100.
Bureau of American Ethnology
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C.
January, 1941

This content downloaded from 34.195.88.230 on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:38:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms