90:, 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.”
107:
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.
69:
he stated: “one would logically proceed to investigate a , 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
31:
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
61:
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
73:
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
106:
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
93:
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
115:
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,
70:
that Dixon set forth the procedure of the direct historical approach. Strong would later go on to say that “once the archeological criteria of culture had been determined, it then possible to advance from the known and historic into the unknown and prehistoric.”
44:
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.
74:
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.
133:
137:
241:
196:
151:
272:
227:
182:
66:
95:
86:
to archaeological phenomena. He explained: “through a series of successive periods prehistoric cultures were linked to
297:
32:
it to establish continuity back into prehistoric times. The historical data then becomes the basis of
82:
After the peak of the direct historical approach, Willey wrote about its use as a means of assigning
65:
Roland B. Dixon was seen as an early proponent of this approach. In his presidential address to the
28:
41:
37:
292:
248:
203:
158:
8:
266:
221:
176:
83:
87:
58:
286:
101:
54:
77:
24:
116:
archaeologists rely on other archaeological theories and methods.
33:
110:
102:
The Direct
Historical Approach in Establishing Chronology
53:
In the nineteenth century, the archaeological record of
16:
Archaeological methodology seeking historical continuity
78:
The Direct
Historical Approach as a Cultural Identifier
284:
57:was viewed as an extension into the past of the
111:Issues with the Direct Historical Approach
285:
271:: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
226:: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
181:: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
67:American Anthropological Association
27:was a methodology developed in the
13:
96:indigenous peoples of the Americas
14:
309:
234:
189:
144:
126:
1:
119:
48:
62:direct historical approach.
7:
10:
314:
21:direct historical approach
29:United States of America
134:"Archaeology Wordsmith"
42:prehistoric communities
298:Archaeological theory
40:for the study of the
305:
277:
276:
270:
262:
260:
259:
253:
247:. Archived from
246:
238:
232:
231:
225:
217:
215:
214:
208:
202:. Archived from
201:
193:
187:
186:
180:
172:
170:
169:
163:
157:. Archived from
156:
148:
142:
141:
136:. Archived from
130:
59:ethnographically
313:
312:
308:
307:
306:
304:
303:
302:
283:
282:
281:
280:
264:
263:
257:
255:
251:
244:
242:"Archived copy"
240:
239:
235:
219:
218:
212:
210:
206:
199:
197:"Archived copy"
195:
194:
190:
174:
173:
167:
165:
161:
154:
152:"Archived copy"
150:
149:
145:
132:
131:
127:
122:
113:
104:
84:ethnic identity
80:
51:
17:
12:
11:
5:
311:
301:
300:
295:
279:
278:
233:
188:
143:
140:on 2013-11-10.
124:
123:
121:
118:
112:
109:
103:
100:
88:proto-historic
79:
76:
50:
47:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
310:
299:
296:
294:
291:
290:
288:
274:
268:
254:on 2013-07-20
250:
243:
237:
229:
223:
209:on 2013-07-20
205:
198:
192:
184:
178:
164:on 2013-07-20
160:
153:
147:
139:
135:
129:
125:
117:
108:
99:
97:
91:
89:
85:
75:
71:
68:
63:
60:
56:
46:
43:
39:
35:
30:
26:
22:
293:Anthropology
256:. Retrieved
249:the original
236:
211:. Retrieved
204:the original
191:
166:. Retrieved
159:the original
146:
138:the original
128:
114:
105:
92:
81:
72:
64:
55:the Americas
52:
20:
18:
25:archaeology
287:Categories
258:2013-11-10
213:2013-11-10
168:2013-11-10
120:References
49:Background
267:cite web
222:cite web
177:cite web
38:homology
34:analogy
252:(PDF)
245:(PDF)
207:(PDF)
200:(PDF)
162:(PDF)
155:(PDF)
273:link
228:link
183:link
36:and
19:The
98:).
23:to
289::
269:}}
265:{{
224:}}
220:{{
179:}}
175:{{
275:)
261:.
230:)
216:.
185:)
171:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.