Archaic Period in North American Archaeology

The Archaic period has been a working concept within archaeology, and even other social sciences, for well over half a century. Long thought of as the stage between the initial peopling of the Americas (sometime in the late Pleistocene) and that of large-scale societies (a few hundred to a thousand years ago), the Archaic has long been a period of simplistic understanding and characterization. One of the most influential characterizations of this period was developed by archaeologists Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips in their now classic Method and Theory in American Archaeology (Classics Southeast Archaeology). Defined “as the stage of migratory hunting and gathering cultures continuing into environmental conditions approximately those of the present” (Willey and Phillips 1958:107), it is only recently that this characterization has been challenged by new archaeological evidence. In a recent issue of the SAA Archaeological Review, Kenneth E. Sassaman introduces several papers that discuss new archaeological evidence that is shifting our understanding of the period, particularly for the Southeast of North America. Key points of these papers, as articulated by Sassaman include:

1) Although the concept of a pan-continental Archaic period in North America has fallen into disfavor, there still exists a tendancy among American archaeologists to gloss the enormous diversity of things Archaic within the broader tropes of “hunter-gatherer” and “primitive” that have shaped anthropological inquiry since the late nineteenth century.

Read the other key points about the Archaic period in North American archaeology here.

New Archaeological Evidence on the Peopling of the New World

Debates and ideas about when, from where, and by what route Native American Indians peopled the Americas are often “resolved” within generalized models based on an assumption of north to south expansion processes. Likewise, these generalized models of the peopling of the Americas assume either single or multi-wave pulses of Native American Indians entering North America and migrating internally down through North America or along the Pacific Coast. Recently, however, models focused on Iberian chipped stone similarities and African or Austronesian skeletal similarities have introduced additional, “extra-Beringial,” migration scenarios to the peopling of the Americas debate. As a result, one way to address these competing models is to reconstruct the pattern and progression of population growth of the earliest viable and archaeologically visible populations in the Americas to see which models are supported.

Reconstructing the pattern and progression of the earliest viable Native American Indian populations into the Americas can be accomplished, or at least begun, by comparing the geographical distributions and progressions of archaeological sites with the earliest known accurate and precise radiometric dates. By comparing the geographical and chronological distributions of the earliest known archaeological sites, the directions from which the earliest viable Native American Indian populations came into the continents and how they expanded can begin to be understood. In Archaeological Roots of Human Diversity in the New World: A Compilation of Accurate and Precise Radiocarbon Ages from Earliest Sites, researcher Michael K. Faught has published the results of such a study.

Read more on the new archaeological evidence of the peopling of the Americas here.

Native American History in the Great Basin

There are two contradicting, but broadly held, views and understandings when it comes to the deep history of indigenous Native American Indian peoples in the Great Basin culture region of North America. The predominate one found in archaeology and across much of the social sciences is that today’s indigenous Native American Indians of the Great Basin (the Paiute, Shoshone, Washoe, Ute, Bannock, Kawaiisu, and Chemehuevi) have only resided in the area for a relatively short time; on the order of perhaps 1000 years. The other understanding of Great Basin human history held by the Native Americans and those scientists who look at a slightly different dataset, includes indigenous Native Americans as deeptime participants of the region.

Often argued under the rubric of Lamb’s 1958 Numic hypothesis, these two conflicting views on history have slowly been coming together. As initially argued by Dr. Jones in Respect for the Ancestors: American Indian Cultural Affiliation in the American West, and then Lithic Projectile Points and the Great Basin Region of North America, new archaeological analyses is lending continued support to an emerging understanding. This emerging understanding centers around the idea of cultural transmission: the mechanism by which technological skills, knowledge, and practices are passed from individual to individual and from group to group.

In an attempt to explain the spatial and temporal patterns observed in the archaeological record, such as why a particular artifact is found in one region but not in another region, or why an artifact type differs in shape or size between two sites, the idea of cultural transmission has slowly gained ground. As cultural transmission has been embraced in the Great Basin, the Numic hypothesis has lost what shaky evidence it had to start. In a recent paper entitled The Cultural Transmission of Great Basin Projectile-Point Technology II: An Agent-Based Computer Simulation authors Alex Mesoudi and Michael J. O’Brien lend support to the emerging understanding of Native American deeptime history in the region.

Read more about Native Americans in the Great Basin and archaeological cultural transmission here.