Direct historical approach

Last updated

The direct historical approach to archaeology was a methodology developed in the United States of America during the 1920s-1930s by William Duncan Strong and others, which argued that knowledge relating to historical periods is extended back into earlier times. This methodology involves taking an archaeological site that has historical accounts relating to recent periods of occupation and then excavating it to establish continuity back into prehistoric times. The historical data then becomes the basis of analogy and homology for the study of the prehistoric communities at both the particular site and other sites in the region. The main issue with the approach is that in many parts of the world there is no direct continuity between historically documented communities and the prehistoric occupants of the region. [1]

Contents

Background

In the nineteenth century, the archaeological record of the Americas was viewed as an extension into the past of the ethnographically documented record. Human behaviors of the archaeological past were seen as nearly identical to those described ethnographically and thus, they could be studied with minimal training in archaeology. The result of this particular view was the development and regular use of what came to be known as the direct historical approach.

Roland B. Dixon was seen as an early proponent of this approach. In his presidential address to the American Anthropological Association he stated: “one would logically proceed to investigate a [number of sites of known ethnic affiliation], and work back from these,” because it “is only through the known that we can comprehend the unknown, only from a study of the present that we can understand the past.” Strong, who later became attributed to this particular methodology, argued that Dixon set forth the procedure of the direct historical approach. Strong would later go on to say that “once the archeological criteria of [a historically documented] culture had been determined, it [is] then possible to advance from the known and historic into the unknown and prehistoric.” [2]

Oddly, the direct historical approach rarely appears in histories of American anthropology. Similarly, very few texts point out that the direct historical approach was used for three distinct purposes. In American archaeology these were: (1) to identify the cultural association of an archaeological manifestation; (2) to construct relative chronologies of archaeological materials; and (3) to understand the human behaviors that were thought to have produced particular portions of the archaeological record.

The Direct Historical Approach as a Cultural Identifier

After the peak of the direct historical approach, Willey wrote about its use as a means of assigning ethnic identity to archaeological phenomena. He explained: “through a series of successive periods prehistoric cultures were linked to proto-historic, historic, and modern descendants. This type of study, sometimes called the ‘direct historical approach,’ has a theoretical basis in cultural continuity. Starting with known, documented habitation sites, certain cultural assemblages were identified and associated with particular tribal groups. Earlier archaeological assemblages were then sought which were not too sharply divergent from the known historic ones, and the procedure was followed backwards in time…The establishment of prehistoric-to-historic continuity is of utmost importance as a springboard for further archaeological interpretation, and, along with general chronological and distributive studies, it is one of the primary historical problems for the American archaeologist.” [3]

Most famously, Cyrus Thomas used the reasoning of the direct historical approach to demonstrate that various earthworks scattered across the eastern and midwestern portions of America (mounds) were produced by the direct genetic and cultural ancestors of historically documented ethnic groups (the indigenous peoples of the Americas).

The Direct Historical Approach in Establishing Chronology

In much the same way that the direct historical approach was used to demonstrate ancestor-descendant relationships, it was also used to measure the passage of time (also called chronology). This process involves creating time-based sequences of artifacts by starting with a list of cultural traits related to specific artifact types and then working into the past by determining which traits/artifact types were held by archaeologically represented cultures. Through this theoretical sorting, one can study more than ethnic identification by establishing time-based sequences. After ethnic identification and chronology has been established, the direct historical approach becomes the basis of analogy. [4]

Issues with the Direct Historical Approach

There are large parts of the world that are without direct continuity between historically documented communities and the prehistoric occupants of the region. Without this connection, the direct historical approach lacks purpose and is unable to enhance archaeological study. If this is the case, archaeologists rely on other archaeological theories and methods.

Related Research Articles

The Iron Age is the final epoch of the three-age division of the prehistory and protohistory of humanity. It was preceded by the Stone Age and the Bronze Age. The concept has been mostly applied to Europe and the Ancient Near East, but also, by analogy, to other parts of the Old World.

Three-age system System for categorizing history

The three-age system is the periodization of human pre-history into three time-periods: the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age; although the concept may also refer to other tripartite divisions of historic time-periods. In history, archaeology and physical anthropology, the three-age system is a methodological concept adopted during the 19th century according to which artefacts and events of late prehistory and early history could be broadly ordered into a recognizable chronology. C. J. Thomsen (1788-1865), director of the Royal Museum of Nordic Antiquities in Copenhagen, initially developed this categorization in the period 1816 to 1825 as a result of classifying the museum's collections chronologically - there resulted broad sequences with artefacts made successively of stone, bronze, and iron.

In archaeology, lithic analysis is the analysis of stone tools and other chipped stone artifacts using basic scientific techniques. At its most basic level, lithic analyses involve an analysis of the artifact’s morphology, the measurement of various physical attributes, and examining other visible features.

Artifact (archaeology) Something made by humans and of archaeological interest

An artifact, or artefact, is a general term for an item made or given shape by humans, such as a tool or a work of art, especially an object of archaeological interest. In archaeology, the word has become a term of particular nuance and is defined as an object recovered by archaeological endeavor, which may be a cultural artifact having cultural interest.

Prehistoric archaeology is the study of the past before historical records began. It is a field of research that looks at all the pre-urban societies of the world. It also has distinctive set of procedures for analysing material remains so that archaeologists can reconstruct their ecological settings. The study of prehistoric archaeology reflects the cultural concerns of modern society by showing interpretations of time between economic growth and political stability. It also has very close links with biology, biological anthropology, and geology. It is also sometimes termed as anthropological archaeology because of its indirect traces with complex patterns.

Culture-historical archaeology Archaeological theory that emphasises defining historical societies into distinct groups via their material culture

Culture-historical archaeology is an archaeological theory that emphasises defining historical societies into distinct ethnic and cultural groupings according to their material culture.

An archaeological culture is a recurring assemblage of types of artifacts, buildings and monuments from a specific period and region that may constitute the material culture remains of a particular past human society. The connection between these types is an empirical observation. But their interpretation in terms of ethnic or political groups is based on archaeologists' understanding and interpretation, and is in many cases subject to long unresolved debates. The concept of the archaeological culture is fundamental to culture-historical archaeology.

Mississippian culture Mound-building Native American culture in Midwestern, Eastern, and Southeastern United States

The Mississippian culture was a Native American civilization that flourished in what is now the Midwestern, Eastern, and Southeastern United States from approximately 800 CE to 1600 CE, varying regionally. It was known for building large, earthen platform mounds, and often other shaped mounds as well. It was composed of a series of urban settlements and satellite villages (suburbs) linked together by loose trading networks. The largest city was Cahokia, believed to be a major religious center located in what is present-day southern Illinois.

Alfred V. Kidder American archaeologist

Alfred Vincent Kidder was an American archaeologist considered the foremost of the southwestern United States and Mesoamerica during the first half of the 20th century. He saw a disciplined system of archaeological techniques as a means to extend the principles of anthropology into the prehistoric past and so was the originator of the first comprehensive, systematic approach to North American archaeology.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to history:

National Register of Historic Places property types Types of properties of the U.S. National Register of Historic Places

The U.S. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) classifies its listings by various types of properties. Listed properties generally fall into one of five categories, though there are special considerations for other types of properties which do not fit into these five broad categories or fit into more specialized subcategories. The five general categories for NRHP properties are: building, district, object, site, and structure.

Kincaid Mounds State Historic Site Archaeological site in Illinois, US

The Kincaid Mounds Historic Site c. 1050–1400 CE, is a Mississippian culture archaeological site located at the southern tip of present-day U.S. state of Illinois, along the Ohio River. Kincaid Mounds has been notable for both its significant role in native North American prehistory and for the central role the site has played in the development of modern archaeological techniques. The site had at least 11 substructure platform mounds, and 8 other monuments.

Waldo Rudolph Wedel was an American archaeologist and a central figure in the study of the prehistory of the Great Plains. He was born in Newton, Kansas to a family of Mennonites. In 1939 he married Mildred Mott, a fellow archaeologist and ethnohistorian. Wedel died in 1996 in Boulder, Colorado, about one year after Mildred's death.

Archaeology or archeology is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. The archaeological record consists of artifacts, architecture, biofacts or ecofacts, sites, and cultural landscapes. Archaeology can be considered both a social science and a branch of the humanities. In Europe it is often viewed as either a discipline in its own right or a sub-field of other disciplines, while in North America archaeology is a sub-field of anthropology.

This glossary of history is a list of definitions of terms and concepts relevant to the study of history and its related fields and sub-disciplines, including both prehistory and the period of human history.

Indigenous archaeology Sub-discipline of western archaeological theory

Indigenous archaeology is a sub-discipline of western archaeological theory that seeks to engage and empower indigenous people in the preservation of their heritage and to correct perceived inequalities in modern archaeology. It also attempts to incorporate non-material elements of cultures, like oral traditions, into the wider historical narrative. This methodology came out of the global anti-colonial movements of the 1970s and 1980s led by aboriginal and indigenous people in settler-colonial nations, like the United States, Canada, and Australia. Major issues the sub-discipline attempts to address include the repatriation of indigenous remains to their respective peoples, the perceived biases that western archaeology's imperialistic roots have imparted into its modern practices, and the stewardship and preservation of indigenous people's cultures and heritage sites. This has encouraged the development of more collaborative relationships between archaeologists and indigenous people and has increased the involvement of indigenous people in archaeology and its related policies.

Franktown Cave United States historic place

Franktown Cave is located 25 miles south of Denver, Colorado on the north edge of the Palmer Divide. It is the largest rock shelter documented on the Palmer Divide, which contains artifacts from many prehistoric cultures. Prehistoric hunter-gatherers occupied Franktown Cave intermittently for 8000 years beginning about 6400 B.C. The site held remarkable lithic and ceramic artifacts, but it is better known for its perishable artifacts, including animal hides, wood, fiber and corn. Material goods were produced for their comfort, task-simplification and religious celebration. There is evidence of the site being a campsite or dwelling as recent as AD 1725.

There are two main approaches currently used to analyze archaeological remains from an evolutionary perspective: evolutionary archaeology and behavioral ecology. The former assumes that cultural change observed in the archaeological record can be best explained by the direct action of natural selection and other Darwinian processes on heritable variation in artifacts and behavior. The latter assumes that cultural and behavioral change results from phenotypic adaptations to varying social and ecological environments. 

In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life was originally published in 1977 by anthropologist James Deetz. The book presents the idea that small objects can play big parts in an individual's life, and should therefore not be taken lightly in an archaeological investigation. The book is one of Deetz's most popular, and has become a staple piece of literature for those studying historical archaeology.

The history of archaeology in the Philippines, officially known as the Republic of the Philippines, has been affected by many significant figures and the multiple chronologies associated with the type of artifacts and research conducted over the years.

References

  1. ↑ "Archaeology Wordsmith". Archived from the original on 2013-11-10.
  2. ↑ http://cladistics.coas.missouri.edu/pdf_articles/JAMT8.pdf [ dead link ]
  3. ↑ http://cladistics.coas.missouri.edu/pdf_articles/JAMT8.pdf [ dead link ]
  4. ↑ http://cladistics.coas.missouri.edu/pdf_articles/JAMT8.pdf [ dead link ]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.