A Comparative Typology of New World Cultures

Abstract

AMERICAN archeology entered a new phase of development with the publication of Willey and Phillips Method and Theory in American Archaeology (1958). For the first time an attempt was made to classify all New World archeological cultures under one comprehensive system of stages. At first hailed as a panacea for problems of New World culture classification, this scheme has since been criticized by archeologists who believe that cultures in some areas do not fit into the scheme without a great deal of stretching of the cultural facts (McKern 1956; Caldwell 1959; Meggers and Evans 1958). The Willey-Phillips classification is difficult to use because they have taken a developmental scheme derived from the data of cultures within one great diffusion sphere, Nuclear America, and have attempted to stretch this scheme to encompass the entire New World. As pointed out by McKern (1956:360) this methodology fails to take into account the aspect of ecology. Each culture is adapted to some degree to the environment in which it occurs. As some areas are incapable of supporting an agricultural economy, all cultures within these areas were automatically limited, in the Willey-Phillips scheme, to a stage no more advanced than Archaic. This resulted in cultures as advanced as those of the Northwest Coast being lumped into the same category as the Paiute and other semi-nomadic gatherers. Taking the above criticism into account, it seems reasonable to assume that a stage classification can be developed which will more accurately fit all New World cultures. The present paper is such an attempt, derived from a summary analysis of 88 of these cultures. The specific methodology used will be discussed in detail below; it is sufficient to state here that the present typology is an outgrowth of a consideration of all the cultures studied, rather than being specifically adapted to some and stretched to fit others. The purpose of this scheme is to provide a method whereby all New World cultures may be classified into one comparative system with as little stretching of the cultural facts as possible. It provides a method of classifying cultures which lends itself to the study of multilinear evolution (Steward 1955: 14-15) on an archeological level. If we have a broad generalizing scheme based on those aspects of various cultures which are similar, we are then better equipped to understand the development of these cultures. We can determine which changes are evolutionary in nature, which are the result of adaptations to the environment, and which are due to the economy. The understanding of cultural development is a primary aim in anthropological research which furnishes the stimulus for much detailed analysis. The uniting of these detailed analyses into an over-all comparative scheme is thus the next step in our study.