Baerreis 1961 The Ethnohistoric Approach and Archaeology. 1 PDF

The American Society for Ethnohistory
The Ethnohistoric Approach and Archaeology

Author(s): David A. Baerreis
Source: Ethnohistory, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Winter, 1961), pp. 49-77
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/480348
Accessed: 17-03-2015 14:58 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
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.
Duke University Press and The American Society for Ethnohistory are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Ethnohistory.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:58:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ETHNOHISTORIC APPROACH AND ARCHAEOLOGY
David A. Baerreis
University of Wisconsin
Although ethnohistory represents a new disciplinary group-

ing, it can not be maintained that an ethnohistoric approach would
interject something new and startlingly different in archaeology.
Recent studies labeled ethnohistory essentially incorporate a
methodology long used in archaeology, though perhaps not as
extensively or as precisely as might be desired. It is of in-
terest to note that the earliest use of the term ethnohistory
found by this writer was in an introduction to a series of pri-
marily archaeological reports published in 1909 entitled The
Indians of Greater New York and the Lower Hudson, the in-
troduction having been written by the editor of the volume,
Clark Wissler. In describing the reports, Wissler states:
In the main, all have followed the same general

method of reconstructing the prehistoric culture by
welding together the available ethno historical and
archaeological data, a method justified by the failure
to find neither local evidences of great antiquity nor
indications of successive or contemporaneous cul-
ture types.I
The nature of the reports and the context of Wissler's remarks

suggest that the meaning of 'ethno historical" as he used it
consists of the reconstruction of an ethnography of the peoples
once resident in the region through the use of cultural data
incorporated in historical narratives. Although an appraisal
of the reports from the vantage point of the present knowledge
of the archaeology of New York and the eastern seaboard
49
50 Ethnohistory
reveals a clear oversight in the failure to see a succession of

culture types, 2 for the time the studies are interesting examples
of a methodology which exhibits several facets of ethnohistorical
research as it applies to archaeology. A more detailed indica-
tion of the contents of this volume can therefore serve as a
vehicle to initiate some historical gleanings on the use of various
ethnohistorical approaches in archaeological research. Such a
survey will then serve as a basis for a statement on the nature
of the relationship of archaeology to ethnohistory and a consid-
eration of what is implied by the latter term in an archaeological
context. Finally, some suggestions will be offered as to the
manner in which this relationship between ethnohistory and
archaeology might be profitably strengthened in future research.
The statementby Clark Wissler already quoted neatly
summarizes a central feature of the methodology used in these
studies of the Indians of the New York region, the construction
of a synthetic description of an aboriginal culture drawing upon
both ethnological data incorporated in early historical narratives
and data recovered through archaeological excavations. The
specific use of this technique, however, should be credited to
Alanson Skinner in his thorough of Staten Island. 3 Here
study
he first describes the archaeological sites and the materials
found through his own and earlier field investigations and then
gives a brief history and ethnography culminating in a cultural
reconstruction based upon the available writings of contemporary
Dutch and British observers combined with the archaeological
data. In a brief report on archaeological material from Man-
hattan Island by James K. Finch we find some attempt being made
to relate the archaeological sites to specific villages or local-
ities mentioned in documentary sources. While not actively
pursued, it is suggested that "going back to the old Dutch records
might lead to some results in finding the actual names, etc.,
Symposium: Archaeology 51
of these places. 4 Reginald Pelham Bolton's which follows

paper
also suggests specific identifications for several Indian villages
on Washington Heights (northern Manhattan) and provides the
most detailed historical treatment. 5 In we may
summary,
state again that two research approaches are evident that have
a bearing on tracing the development of an ethnohistoric approach
in archaeology. One, growing out of the anthropological ori-
entation of Alanson Skinner, makes use of documentary materials
to supplement archaeological data, the objective being a rounded
culture description. A second approach, best illustrated by the
more historical orientation of Reginald P. Bolton, suggests a
potential juncture of documented history with archaeological
remains where sites may be identified with those enumerated
in written records. 6
Direct Historical Approach
The second approach in the volume considered above has

been designated the direct historical approach in an article
written by Julian H. Steward. 7 Steward, in a period when
taxonomic classification was being extensively used in archae-
ological writings, felt it essential to point out the tremendous
strides that had been made in earlier research through an
alternative method. This he briefly characterized as follows:
Methodologically, the direct historical approach

involves the elementary logic of working from the
known to the unknown. First, sites of the historic
period are located. These are preferably, but not
necessarily, thoses of identifiable tribes. Second,
the cultural complexes are carried backward in
time to protohistoric and prehistoric periods and
cultures. 8
Steward, in stating "that the sites are preferably, but not

necessarily, those of indentifiable tribes" (emphasis ours)
52 Ethnohistory
departs, however, from what we would regard-as a sound ethno-

historic approach. The tracing of a cultural tradition over
time, whether it is tribally indentified or not, represents one
kind of an archaeological approach which is essentially historical
in character. Yet to take full advantage of the collateral re-
sources of ethnology and documentary history it is essential
that identifiable sites be used as a point of departure.
the positing
Further, of an "identified" cultural tradition
in a region on the basis of distributional data where the area
occupied by an archaeological complex appears to coincide
with an ethnic distribution is a hazardous undertaking in view
of the facility with which tribal movements have taken place
during the historic period and the pitfalls demonstrated by
earlier archaeological research. It is instructive to compare
the admirable analysis of the current status of the indentifica-
tion of Cherokee archaeological remains in the study by T. M.
N. Lewis and Madeline
Kneberg9 with the early investigation
of the Cherokee in this same region by M. R. Harrington. 10
Harrington, operating under the assumption that his excava-

tions were in essentially Cherokee territory, takes as a work-
ing premise that the most recent archaeological remains must
be Cherokee. Trade goods associated with artifacts of Indian
manufacture allow the identification of an historic
complex
which then may be traced back into the past. Support for his
assumption of Cherokee identification of the late ceramic unit
on Hiwassee Island is given by citing local records indicating
that until 1818 it was the home of the Cherokee chief John
Jolly and by the flat assertion that when the Whites first began
to visit the upper Tennessee valley they found it occupied
exclusively by the Cherokee. The lack of adequate historic
research has clearly led to an oversimplification of the pic-
ture. Also lacking is a detailed analysis of European trade
goods as to time of manufacture which would add precision to

the historical analysis. The complexity of the pattern of oc-
cupation of the region during the historic period is skillfully
dealt with by Lewis and Kneberg in their study1' but the par-
ticular point worthy of stress in relation to the archaeological
identification of the Cherokee occupation at Hiwassee Island
centers on chief John Jolly. He did indeed occupy Hiwassee
Island until he was moved to Arkansas in 1818. But Lewis
and Kneberg also demonstrate through the analysis of historic
records pertaining to the specific Cherokee group of which his
village was a component member that transformations in their
material culture had proceeded at a very rapid rate. They
point out that James Adair (1736), Henry Timberlake (1761)
and William Bartram (1776) had specifically commented on the
very great extent to which European goods had been adopted,
making it virtually impossible for Chief Jolly's occupation to
have left the flourishing aboriginal materials, for these clearly
date prior to the late Cherokee occupation of Chief Jolly. z2
But perhaps the best illustration of the pitfalls involved in the

use of similarities between areal distributions of archaeological
manifestations and tribal distributions is the erroneous attribu-
tion of the Effigy Mound culture of Wisconsin to the Winnebago
1 of the lack of specific
tribe. While this is again a question
linkages through known historic sites, as in our Cherokee ex-
ample, the absence of an adequate chronological framework
for the archaeological manifestations represented a tremendous
weakness. The direct historic approach is a powerful tool,
but it must also accompany sound research devoted to construc-
tion of an adequate chronology.
The above comments and examples are designed to sharpen
our perspective concerning the relationship between the direct
historic approach as it has been practiced and a 'sound ethnohistoric
54 Ethnohistory
approach and are not intended to minimize its value. In his

paper, Julian Steward indicates that he regards this method as
having been deliberately initiated only about 1915. A few studies
prior to this time will be cited, both to clarify the time at which
American archaeology was becoming conscious of its methods
as a scientific discipline and to illustrate some of the specific
techniques used to identify particular historic sites or the
tribal identity of the occupants of a given site. No attempt has
been made to give an exhaustive enumeration since it is obvious
that the question of tribal identification has been a central one
for a very long period though not specifically perceived as a
methodological tool. 14
N. C. Nelson's contribution through his archaeological
work in the Galisteo Basin, New Mexico, deserves particular
comment. This investigation, largely carried out during the
summer of 1912, in Nelson's words, provided
. . .an opportunity to prosecute a piece of research

work in the most scientific manner, namely, by work-
ing back from the known to the unknown.15
Here were sites known to be the seats of Franciscan missions

where remains of the early mission chapels provided concrete
evidence as to the historic placement of at least a portion of
the ruins. But more specifically, it was Nelson's careful
sifting and evaluation of the historic documents that provided
a precise starting point within a historic frame of reference
for his archaeological investigations. The phraseology as well
as the methodology proposed echoes that advocated by Roland
B. Dixon in a paper delivered before the 1913 annual meeting
of the American Association. 16 While Nelson
Anthropological
may be credited with providing a model for Southwestern archae-
ologists, for the Plains region credit must certainly be given
to the later work of William Duncan 17
Strong. Despite such
pioneer studies in the region as the early investigation of the

Mandan by George F. Will and Herbert J. Spinden, 18 and the
subsequent work by Will19 which dealt with many historic sites
of the nothern Plains, the credit must be given to Strong for
stressing the nature of the anthropological problems and the
methods by which they could be resolved. Strong's Nebraska
study in particular demonstrates the importance of careful
analyses of early maps as well as the narrative accounts. For
the eastern United States so many of the early archaeological
reports dealt with the problem of tribal indentification, a recital
of particular studies would be excessively long.
Far too frequently the simple indentification of the occupants
of a site has been seen as the goal of what has been labeled the
direct historic approach in archaeological research. That more
can and should be done has been suggested, as in a paper by
Bertram S. Kraus20 where the use of the framework of an ac-
culturation study is proposed. Rather than to consider such
general proposals, however, it may be more profitable to
continue making use of specific monographs that illustrate
ramifications in methodological concepts.
Synthetic Cultural Descriptions
The pioneer work of Alanson Skinner has been previously

cited to call attention to an approach in which the combined
resources of archaeological, ethnological, and historical data
have been utilized to construct a composite and hence more
complete cultural description than could have been formed on
the basis of a single body of data. A more recent report using
a similar methodology is Waldo R. Wedel's study of the Paw-
nee21 although the social, political,and religious aspects of
Pawnee culture were not included. Although some temporal
trends are indicated in Wedel's monograph such as the decline
56 Ethnohistory
in the quality of the ceramics which is associated with the move

toward a more nomadic, bison-hunting mode of life, the picture
presented is essentially a static one. While it should be re-
called that archaeological work on Pawnee sites was in its in-
fancy at the time the study was written, the inadequacy of the
approach in regard to culture change may be stressed as a
basic weakness shared with the earlier work of Alanson Skinner.
The utility of simply using a chronological ordering of material
is not adequately exploited. The exclusion of social and political
aspects from the total spectrum of material considered is also
a handicap in evaluating the potential functional connotations of
the archaeological material and, at the same time, deprives
us of the opportunity to consider relative rates of culture change
in various segments of a culture.
Such a limitation is not inherent in the basic approach.
Two more recent publications have made use of a chronological
framework with archaeological investigations providing a start-
ing point. Robert F. Heizer and John E. Mills22 trace the
history of a Yurok Indian village (Tsurai on Trinidad Bay,
California) through four "ages" or periods, the first being a
prehistoric one defined on the basis of archaeological investi-
gations at the site. Subsequent periods (Discovery and Ex-
ploration, 1775-1800; Exploration: The Fur Trade, 1800-1849;
Decline and Fall: The American Invasion, 1850-1916) are
presented through extracts from journals, diaries, ethnological
accounts and other published works. These are brought to-
gether frommany diverse sources and arranged according to
the chronological order indicated above. The prehistoric
section discussing the results of the archaeological excavations
is presented in a highly condensed and generalized form and
is the shortest of the sections. Since subsequent sections
comprise a compilation of documents rather than an analysis
of their data as they reveal the pattern of cultural change, the

study can best be regarded as suggesting a pattern of research
rather than documenting the accomplishments that could be
obtained through its use. It is, however, obvious that the
archaeological investigations at the site span all four "ages" so
that in preparing a final study of this community, the documentary,
ethnological and archaeological data can be worked together
into a synthetic picture, yet retaining the major chronological
periods suggested as a basis for understanding the patterns of
change.
A more recent study in this form is Frederica de Laguna's
of a Tlingit 23
investigation community. Laguna deals not with
a single village, but rather with the area occupied by the Angoon
people of southeastern Alaska. While the archaeological in-
vestigations of this study would appear to be more substantial
than those of the preceding one, they still create the impres-
sion of being inadequate so far as the objectives of the study
are concerned. In moderately extensive form, they are con-
fined to two sites with the yield of artifacts being rather low
and the time span involved a brief one. The description of
the archaeological material recovered is combined with ethno-
logical notes on technology, hunting practices, etc. It does,
thus, provide us with a synthetic description comparable to
others mentioned in this group. Subsequent to the archaeo-
logical section the history of Angoon as seen through native
traditions is contrasted with that provided by the rather meagre
decuments derived from written sources.
Laguna summarizes her contribution by stating that a
beginning has been made in the study of the history of the
northern Tlingit. And that this particular study
. . . has demonstrated that archeological, ethno-

logical, and historical data, if combined and analyzed
58 Ethnohisto ry
together, can give a deeper insight than any one type

4
of material or one methodology alone.
It is indeed this methodological consideration, the appraisal of

the factors involved in coordinationg a multi-faceted approach
that enhances the significance of the study. Laguna has raised
some basic questions as to the degree of congruence in pictures
of a society obtained through (1) archaeological excavations,
(2) ethnological descriptions of how "our people lived at that
place in grandfather's time," (3) early museum collections
derived from a region, and (4) the contemporary records of
missionaries, explorers, or traders. Certainly we should
become aware of how and why these pictures differ, but it is
precisely because they do differ that we need to consider all
of them to gain a better understanding of a people. The present
writer is perhaps more impressed than Laguna seems to have
been with the extent to which refuse deposits, "the 'junk' of
everyday life .... chiefly what people have lost or thrown
away" will represent a reliable sample of major aspects of

life though obviously it can never be complete. But attention
has been directed to this material, not to quarrel with Laguna's
provocative monograph, but to suggest that similarly oriented
studies be made under conditions where more extended archaeo-
logical investigations can be conducted and where a more sub-
stantial body of documentary materials would be available for
complementary analysis.
The question of the congruence between archaeological
and ethnohistorical data had been previously raised by George
I. Quimby in his study of the Bayou Goula site in Louisiana. 25
Quimby includes an interesting summary titled "Ethno-historical

Descriptions of Material Culture (1682-1750" which concludes
on a rather discouraging note:
The correlations between the historical data and

the archaeological findings are not very good. Some
of the reasons for this are as follows: (1) The archaeo-
logical data are incomplete. (2) The French observers
either ignored the material culture or did not describe
it specifically enough to enable meaningful compari-
sons. (3) The continual splintering and amalgamating
of lower Mississippi Valley tribes and the complicated
commercial and social relations among them were
confusing to the French observers. For these reasons
only, although others could be added to the list, it is
difficult to use the ethno-historical data from the lower
Mississippi Valley for specific descriptions of tribal
cultures. On a more abstract level and in a more
general context these ethnohistorical data are reward-
ing. As Swanton (1911) used them, they can provide
a general framework for a description of the general
culture of the lower valley. But such a general picture
is not of great use in search for the particulars by
which one can comprehend the form and process of
the culture. 26
Such an appraisal would not appear to bode well for more ex-
tensive use of ethnohistory but one might question whether it
is justified when the total report is considered. Certainly
there are some discrepancies between the ethnohistoric and
archaeological data but these are perhaps problem areas that
deserve further exploration. Much of the ethnohistoric data
pertain to perishable materials so that they in effect comprise
a very valuable addition to the archaeological record. Where
the ethnohistoric sources describe bone implements, their
absence at the site is of particular interest since not a single
bone implement is recorded from the excavations - an unlikely
situation for any late archaeological complex and a fact sug-
gesting that perhaps local soil conditions may be responsible.
The ethnohistoric sources stress the use of fire-hardened
cane as well as bone projectile points for the arrows while
the archaeological excavations produced chipped stone projec-
tile points. Yet a total of only 53 chipped stone projectile
60 Ethnohistory
points were found in contrast to over 19,000 sherds of pottery,

a proportion which suggests that the ethnohistoric sources are
needed to clarify what otherwise might be regarded as a decided
lack of interest in hunting activities.
Some Specific Ethnohistoric Approaches
In the light of the orientation provided by the Tlingit study

and the others cited, we may now make some suggestions as to
the manner in which documentary sources might better comple-
ment the picture of a culture as derived from archaeological
investigations. One such area is a more detailed analysis of
the kinds of trade goods provided. We have had analyses of
trade goods as recovered at specific archaeological sites
(Quimby's description of the Natchez culture will serve as one
example which also provides us with a synthetic cultural de-
scription27 ) and J Joseph Bauxar28 has incorporated in a report
describing Illinois culture in the historic period an inventory
of the merchandise carried by an independent trader in 1688.
Such data could be brought into conjunction to measure the
extent to which items purchased by a particular tribal group
at a particular time are preserved in their sites. It may be
of some interest to illustrate the completeness of some records
that are available of trading activities.
The National Archives at Washington contain many of the
records of the United States Indian Factory System which
consisted of a series of trading posts maintained in various
regions of the country between 1795 and 1822. 29 These records
include Day Books which enumerate the individual transactions
and in many instances it is possible to identify the person
involved and his tribal affiliation. From the Day Books of
the Factory located at Fort Wayne, Indiana, it is possible to
compare the kind and quantities of goods purchased by the Miami,

Potawatomi and Delaware Indians who were resident in the area.
In Table 1 such purchases, as well as goods provided as an-
nuities (which also appear to have been selected by the Indians),
are tabulated for the years 1804 through 1806. The comparative
listing of the three tribes provides an opportunity to see the
differential patterns of buying
on the part of the three tribes,
the differences in the proportion of purchases perhaps emerging
somewhat more clearly in Table 2 where percentages of total
funds spent for major categories of purchases are tabulated.
From the point of view of the economy, the greater stress on
the part of the Miami and Potawatomi on hunting and trapping
is clearly reflected in th pattern of purchases. In the light of
Joyce Wike's comment concerning our lack of specific knowledge
and documentation of the impact that steel traps, steel axes,
and guns had on native economic systems, 30 it is of interest to
note the evident lack of interest in the purchase of traps as
reflected in Table 1. Traders' records for the Potawatomi
from this same region for the years 1829-1830 suggest that
this was a time of transition with the number of traps purchased
in this later time span being substantially greater and coupled
with a shift away from the pattern of buying yard goods but
rather using large quantities of blankets instead. In any event,
the records of the Factories and the private traders do permit
a rather detailed analysis not only of the extent of acculturation
in material culture but also provide data on such aspects as the
development of a horse complex and property concepts (note
the acquisition of padlocks by the Miami) which might other-
wise be difficult to document for this period.
The records of the traders clearly permit a quantitative
analysis of aspects of a changing economic system which could
profitably be compared with the details of our archaeological
62 Ethnohistory
L_
- N 0 -
N
H o u0 o o o o o u
H -
? ???^ <???i s1,%4 Q
o 0
4. ,
O'-l (Q'- 4N N
0
? En0?o oo oo .
oL4 0 0
00 N N L
t U Q o6rM'coo , v . , n
Q O 00 N 0 L
N
? ? q)
,--$ 4 ,$3
0 X ?
-4 rz) j_
0
S?-, 0
Archaeology 63o
Symposium:
oVo-4o
- s
,. 40 c N e N N N
O,_.-._4_ e N _
L _ N N 0
N
N _
00
MCO N in ' A0
'
<C<M aorM~o iM tft ~ d46I
- o
Hooooin
H o cv
(M o- o ot) o o > t
r Nf i-c-n
-o o5
* . . . .
. . 6 -4
-
L.
t N O
CN tN O
4 -
O0
--4
0 6-J~ ~ ~
•]•~~~
64 Ethnohistory
0 ,-4 N- c N
e,'- N ,-(
4 .- o -4
1-1 om oino o N L inao o o o
< . ..
* N
>~ o o0 o e
4.r '-
0 4 O *
3 3 k b
J >^ k co c 0 0 0
65
Symposium: Archaeology
^ r' - n
H o 0oo o o o o o
inL
n AA A LA LA N N 0o
. . - N c
o o o O O O
LAn OL
w . .6 0m
<24.
rf
^N N 'N .; N 0 N t
- - -
^. o 00 o o0 o0 ooo
0 ~ o
o u00 m ro
_ el; '? LA N _ . C
*-
Q V
0 :^..
0
^1
a ;4 0 E 0 , (,, E E | CI 0 CS
ot '.4 _ 4 u
66 Ethnohistory
H o Ln Ln tn r- N CN o' o0 ' SL
N N 0Lo L Ln 0 0-r
?r- _--
< ^O co
H _
0
* . . * *
N _ N
o0 0
0 L o rt- 0' N
o0 L
0,o 1N o o0
LA N
<4 _- N t
LA
iN c
0'
U--ql 0 0
* ?
-' , - "
4 g ^ ! _ i O I _
11 O :,S
H ?- ^. . . ?l
! - f
0
&-< 4a
in o oo o oo ,q'
o o
a c
,n
? CMN o ci m o, 4 in
_^ _t(|N ro1~ 0 < 0 .
.,-0
.- . . . .-- .
[4 o
- M -6.4C4A
0~ ~ 0
O 0 0.
. 0* 4 0
o_ o
68 Ethnohistory
o0
m o e
H O
> z S^~~~~~0 _" |

co
*q -
(0 Q 4 0
Q = O 4QO X
0 ., . 0
0 ? o.U,
assemblages or studied as an independent investigation. Such

records have been available for many years. What has been
lacking has been an anthropological problem formulation which
would reveal their value in cultural studies. Specific elements
in this assemblage can also be studied with profit. The extremely
useful work of George I. Quimby on trade silver, originally
undertaken for dating purposes and to determine tribal identi-
as an example. 31 Such studies
fication, may be cited may lead
to further ramifications as in the extent to which the acquisition
32
of trade silver resulted in the development of a native craft.
Similarly we see in the intensive study of glass beads a useful
tool which can indicate the time and direction of trade contacts.
Here too, in at least one instance, it provided the stimulus for
a native glass working craft which has been described on the
basis of archaeological materials from Arikara sites. 33 Careful
analysis of business records could do much to document the

magnitude of the trade which led to the modification and enrichment
of the native patterns of life. A complete account requires in-
vestigations not only in the archaeological sites, but in the records
of the traders as well.
The conclusions reached above regarding the value of ethno-
history are in large part a restatement of a position already pre-
sented by Fred R. Eggan in his contribution to the volume honor-
ing Fay-Cooper Cole.
. . . the potential values of ethno-historical research,

combined with the direct historical approach to arche-
ology, offer so much in the way of rewards that they
should be strongly encouraged. But ethno-historical
research is so specialized and time-consuming that
its activities need to be coordinated and centralized. 34
They are time-consuming, but so are all major research activ-

ities. While they require the development of skills and a knowl-
edge of where and how to get materials and to view these with a
70 Ethnohistory
critical appraisal, these skills are no more difficult to learn

and acquire than'other useful
tools for anthropological research.
And while specialists may be encouraged to work with these
materials, the contributions to anthropology will be greater if
the problems to be investigated and the critical frame of ref-
erence are formulated by anthropologists.
What, then, is the nature of an ethnohistoric approach in
archaeology? In essence, it clearly centers upon the use of
documentary sources in conjunction with the study of data
derived from
archaeological excavation. Its range is broad
and not confined solely to the determination of who lived at a
particular site and when they occupied that location. Under
favorable circumstances, documentary materials can provide
data on the pattern of incorporation of the native groups into a
broader social system, on changing economic patterns, or on
the total pattern of culture change or acculturation to express
it more simply and comprehensively. Ethnohistory in conjunction
with ethnology provides the means for coordinating diverse kinds
of data in the solution of anthropological problems. As Julian
H. Steward indicated in the introduction to a volume honoring
one of the great pioneers in ethnohistoric research, John R.
Swanton:
. . . the primary and distinguishing task of anthropology

continues to be the reconstruction of man's biological
and cultural history. It is the common objective which
gives direction to the more specialized work of ethnol-
ogy, archeology, linguistics, and physical anthropology. 3s
For archaeology, an ethnohistoric approach serves as a means

whereby a fundamental link in the broad narrative of man's culture
history is achieved.
Notes
1. Wissler, Indians of Greater New York, p. xiii.
2. Actually both M. R. Harrington and Max Schrabisch

recognized a succession of cultures in this volume and indicated
that a non-ceramic culture antedated the ceramic horizons
(Wissler, Indians of Greater New York, pp. 130, 153). Alanson
Skinner in his summary article on the archaeology of the New
York Coastal Algonkin argues against this interpretation (ibid.,
pp. 233-234) and it would appear that his position was accepted
by Clark Wissler. An indication of present concepts regarding
the archaeology of this region is to be found in the study by
Carlyle S. Smith, The Archaeology of Coastal New York.
3. Wissler, Indians of Greater New York, pp. 3-62.
4. Ibid. , p. 67.
5. Ibid., pp. 77-109.
6. The archaeological papers by M. R. Harrington and

Max Schrabisch in Wissler, Indians of Greater New York, make
no systematic attempt to utilize historic sources. The Ethno-
graphic study by F. G. Speck on the then surviving Mohegan
and Niantic is confined to material obtained from informants.
7. Steward, Direct Historical Approach.
8. Ibid., p. 337.
9. Lewis and Kneberg, Hiwassee Island, esp. pp. 97-99.
10. Harrington, Cherokee Remains.
11. Lewis and Kneberg, Hiwassee Island, pp. 10-20.
12. Ibid., pp. 132-135.
72 Ethnohistory
13. Radin, Some Aspects of Winnebago Archeology.
14. James B. Griffin in his brief article, The Pursuit of

Archeology in the United States, has indicated that one of the
approaches used by Cyrus Thomas in the late 19th century was
to begin with the historic tribes and 'trace them back step by
step into the past." While indicating the early sources from
which the direct historic approach is derived, its use at this
early time period should not be confused with its more precise
usage in later times. Thomas worked at a time when the Indian
authorship of American antiquities was still debated, and his
work in establishing a probable link between specific archae-
ological material and particular tribes represented a substantial
achievement. The conscious appraisal and consideration of the
direct historical approach in the early 20th century, however,
represents an attempt to sharpen a methodology, the aim being
to establish historical identifications with a substantially greater
degree of reliability.
15. Nelson, Pueblo Ruins, p. 9.
16. Dixon, Some Aspects of Archeology, p. 565.
17. Strong, Introduction to Nebraska Archeology.
18. Will and Spinden, The Mandans.
19. Will, Archaeology of the Missouri Valley, serves as

an example.
20. Kraus, Acculturation, a New Approach to the Iroquoian

Problem.
21. Wedel, Introduction to Pawnee Archeology.
22. Heizer and Mills, Four Ages of Tsurai.
23. Laguna, Story of a Tlingit Community.
24. Ibid., p. 200.
25. Quimby, The Bayou Goula Site.
26. The ethnohistoric summary will be found on pp. 147-161

of the above report, the paragraph quoted being from the last
two pages.
27. Quimby, Natchezan Culture Type.
28. Bauxar, The Historic Period, p. 47.
29. The most comprehensive history of the Factory system

is to be found in Peake, A History of the United States Indian
Factory System. A facet of particular interest which can only
be obtained from the trade records is an analysis of the kinds
of goods that were rejected by the Indians and could not be sold
(ibid., pp. 70-72).
30. Wike, Problems in Fur Trade Analysis, p. 1088.
31. Quimby has published a series of papers in this area

including: Notes on Indian Trade Silver, Dated Indian Burials,
and Silver Ornaments and the Indians. A study by Alberts,
Trade Silver and Indian Silver, may also be profitably examined.
32. Baerreis, Trade Silver and Indian Silversmiths.
33. Stirling, Arikara Glassworking.
34. Eggan, The Ethnological Cultures, p. 37.
35. Steward, introduction to Essays in Historical Anthropol-

ogy, p. 12.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adair, James, The History of the American Indians (London,

1775)
74 Ethnohistory
Alberts, Robert C., Trade Silver and Indian Silver in the Great
Lakes Region (Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 34, pp. 1-121,
1953)
Baerreis, David A., Trade Silver and Indian Silversmiths

(Wisconsin Magazine of History, vol. 34, pp. 76-82, 1950)
Bartram, William, Travels through North and South Carolina,

Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country,
the Extensive Territories of the Muscogulges of the Creek
Confederacy, and the country of the Chactaws (Philadelphia,
1791)
Bauxar, J Joseph, The Historic Period (in Elaine A. Bluhm, ed., )

Illinois Archaeology, Bulletin No. 1, Illinois Archaeological
Survey, pp. 40-58, 1959)
Dixon, Roland B., Some Aspects of North American Archeology

(American Anthropologist, vol. 15, pp. 549-560, 1913)
Eggan, Fred R., The Ethnological Cultures and Their Archeo-

logical Backgrounds (in James B. Griffin, ed., Archeology
of the Eastern United States, pp. 35-45. Chicago, 1952)
Griffin, James B., The Pursuit of Archeology in the United

States (American Anthropologist, vol. 61, pp. 379-389,
1959)
Harrington, M. R., Cherokee and Earlier Remains on Upper

Tennessee River (Indian Notes and Monographs, Museum
of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. New York, 1922)
Heizer, Robert F. and John E. Mills, The Four Ages of Tsurai

(Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1952)
Kraus, Bertram S., Acculturation, a New Approach to the

Iroquoian Problem (American Antiquity, vol. 9, pp. 302-
318, 1944)
Laguna, Frederica de, The Story of a Tlingit Community: A

Problem in the Relationship Between Archaeological, Ethno-
logical and Historical Methods (Bureau of American Ethnol-
ogy, Bulletin 172. Washington, 1960)
Lewis, Thomas M. N. and Madeline Kneberg, Hiwassee Island:

An Archaeological Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples
(Knoxville, 1946)
Nelson, N. C., Pueblo Ruins of the Galisteo Basin, New Mexico

(Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History, vol. 15, part 1. New York, 1914)
Peake, Ora Brooks, A History of the United States Indian

Factory System, 1795-1822 (Denver, 1954)
Quimby, George I., Jr., The Bayou Goula Site, Iberville Parish,
Louisiana (Fieldiana: Anthropology, vol. 47, no. 2. Chicago,
1957)
, Dated Indian Burials in Michigan

(Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and
Letters, vol. 23, pp. 63-72. Ann Arbor, 1938)
, The Natchezan Culture Type (American

Antiquity, vol. 7, pp. 255-275, 1942)
, Notes on Indian Trade Silver Ornaments

in Michigan (Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science,
Arts, and Letters, vol. 22, pp. 15-24. Ann Arbor, 1937)
, Silver Ornaments and the Indians

(Miscellanea Paul Rivet Octogenario Dicata, 31 ro Congreso
Internacional de Americanistas, Part I, pp. 317-337.
Mexico, D. F., 1958)
Radin, Paul, Some Aspects of Winnebago Archeology (American

Anthropologist, vol. 13, pp. 517-538, 1911)
76 Ethnohistory
Smith, Carlyle S., The Archaeology of Coastal New York

(Anthropological Papers, American Museum of Natural
History, vol. 43, part 2. New York, 1950)
Steward, Julian H., The Direct Historical Approach to Archae-

ology (American Antiquity, vol. 7, pp. 337-343, 1942)
, Introduction (in Essays in Historical

Anthropology of North America, pp. 11- 13, Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 100. Washington, 1940)
Stirling, Mathew W., Arikara Glassworking (Journal of the

Washington Academy of Sciences, vol. 37, pp. 257-263,
1947)
Strong, William D., An Introduction to Nebraska Archeology

(Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 93, no. 10.
Washington, 1935)
Timberlake, Henry, Memoirs of Lieut. Henry Timberlake

(Who Accompanied Three Cherokee Indians to England in
the year 1762)... Containing an Accurate Map of Their
Overhill Settlement (London, 1765)
Wedel, Waldo R., An Introduction to Pawnee Archeology

(Bulletin 112, Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington,
1936)
Wike, Joyce, Problems in Fur Trade Analysis: The Northwest

Coast (American Anthropologist, vol. 60, pp. 1086-1101,
1958)
Will, George F., Archaeology of the Missouri Valley (Anthro-

pological Papers, American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 22, part 6. New York, 1924)
Will, George F. and Herbert J. Spinden, The Mandans: A Study

of Their Culture, Archaeology, and Language (Papers,
Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology,
vol. 3, no. 4. Cambridge, Mass., 1906)
Wissler, Clark, ed., The Indians of Greater New York and the
Lower Hudson (Anthropological Papers, American Museum
of Natural History, vol. 3. New York, 1909)

Baerreis 1961 The Ethnohistoric Approach and Archaeology. 1 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Baerreis 1961 The Ethnohistoric Approach and Archaeology. 1 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The American Society for Ethnohistory

The Ethnohistoric Approach and Archaeology

Although ethnohistory represents a new disciplinary group-

In the main, all have followed the same general

The nature of the reports and the context of Wissler's remarks

reveals a clear oversight in the failure to see a succession of

of these places. 4 Reginald Pelham Bolton's which follows

Direct Historical Approach

The second approach in the volume considered above has

Methodologically, the direct historical approach

Steward, in stating "that the sites are preferably, but not

departs, however, from what we would regard-as a sound ethno-

Harrington, operating under the assumption that his excava-

goods as to time of manufacture which would add precision to

But perhaps the best illustration of the pitfalls involved in the

approach and are not intended to minimize its value. In his

. . .an opportunity to prosecute a piece of research

Here were sites known to be the seats of Franciscan missions

pioneer studies in the region as the early investigation of the

Synthetic Cultural Descriptions

The pioneer work of Alanson Skinner has been previously

in the quality of the ceramics which is associated with the move

of their data as they reveal the pattern of cultural change, the

. . . has demonstrated that archeological, ethno-

together, can give a deeper insight than any one type

It is indeed this methodological consideration, the appraisal of

away" will represent a reliable sample of major aspects of

Quimby includes an interesting summary titled "Ethno-historical

The correlations between the historical data and

points were found in contrast to over 19,000 sherds of pottery,

Some Specific Ethnohistoric Approaches

In the light of the orientation provided by the Tlingit study

compare the kind and quantities of goods purchased by the Miami,

? ???^ <???i s1,%4 Q

1-1 om oino o N L inao o o o

_^ _t(|N ro1~ 0 < 0 .

> z S^~~~~~0 _" |

assemblages or studied as an independent investigation. Such

analysis of business records could do much to document the

. . . the potential values of ethno-historical research,

They are time-consuming, but so are all major research activ-

critical appraisal, these skills are no more difficult to learn

. . . the primary and distinguishing task of anthropology

For archaeology, an ethnohistoric approach serves as a means

1. Wissler, Indians of Greater New York, p. xiii.

2. Actually both M. R. Harrington and Max Schrabisch

3. Wissler, Indians of Greater New York, pp. 3-62.

5. Ibid., pp. 77-109.

6. The archaeological papers by M. R. Harrington and

7. Steward, Direct Historical Approach.

9. Lewis and Kneberg, Hiwassee Island, esp. pp. 97-99.

10. Harrington, Cherokee Remains.

11. Lewis and Kneberg, Hiwassee Island, pp. 10-20.

12. Ibid., pp. 132-135.

13. Radin, Some Aspects of Winnebago Archeology.

14. James B. Griffin in his brief article, The Pursuit of

15. Nelson, Pueblo Ruins, p. 9.

16. Dixon, Some Aspects of Archeology, p. 565.

17. Strong, Introduction to Nebraska Archeology.

18. Will and Spinden, The Mandans.

19. Will, Archaeology of the Missouri Valley, serves as

20. Kraus, Acculturation, a New Approach to the Iroquoian

21. Wedel, Introduction to Pawnee Archeology.