# The American Indian/Chapter 16

CHAPTER XVI
CHRONOLOGY OF CULTURES
In the course of these discussions it may have occurred to the reader that our culture classification is purely extensive, or horizontal, and ignores the chronological, or vertical relation. It is this chronological relation that underlies the great classifications in Old World archæology, especially that triumph of synthetic research in Europe, the determinations of the sequential relations among the several epochs in Paleolithic and Neolithic cultures. In this book we have so far been concerned with the distribution of trait-complexes rather than with their chronological sequence. Such a comprehension of the gross culture geography of the New World is logically necessary to its analytic treatment, but it is, after all, merely preliminary. It so far forms the chief content of our subject for the very good reason that it is a new science and as such has had barely more than time to get even once around the distribution problem; but now that such a general view has been attained, interest promises to center upon the time relations between the respective types of culture.
Mexico, Peru, and Yucatan have histories from which, as a vantage ground, respectable chronologies have been established. Of these, the last is the most extended, for the very good reason that the Maya have left to us a number of dated inscriptions. While these have come down to us in terms of the curious and highly original Maya calendar, yet modern scholars have been able to correlate them with our own reckoning. This correlation is, of course, not absolute, so the exact dates of one investigator do not quite agree with those of another, but still all have the same sequence. The following brief list based upon Morley's readings will give an adequate idea of the age of Maya culture.
| B.C. | | MAYA CHRONOLOGY |
| 200 | (?) | Approximate earliest date. |
| A.D. |
| 50 | | Period of sculpture. |
| 600 | | Last of dated sculptures. |
| 960 | | Chankanputun destroyed by fire. |
| 1000 | | Triple Alliance of Chichen Itza, Uxmal, and Mayapan—the period of architectural development. |
| 1200 | | Triple alliance broken by the ruler of Chichen Itza who was overcome by the ruler of Mayapan, aided by the Nahua. |
| | | This is the period of Nahua influence. |
| 1450 | | Mayapan overthrown and destroyed and collapse of Maya culture. |
| 1517 | | First Spanish expedition to Yucatan. |
Thus we see that fully two thousand years ago Maya art had already reached a high level of development, implying far more remote beginnings. No such series can be found in Peruvian antiquities, but they may be the older for all that. The history of the rise of the Inca is fairly well known, the succession of rulers being as follows:—
* Rocca—about 1200 A.D.
* Lloque Yupanqui
* Mayta Capac
* Capac Yupanqui
* Sinchi Rocca
* Yahuar Huacac Mayta Yupanqui
* Huira Cocha-Tupac Yupanqui
* Tupac Yupanqui
* Huaina Capac (Inti Cusi Hualpa)
* Huascar Inti (Cusi Hualpa Yupanqui)
The unfortunate Huascar was made an end of in civil war just as the Spaniards came upon the scene in 1532. But Markham produces records of a much longer list of ninety-two kings, which, if authentic, carries us back to about 1300 B.C. While the specific correctness of these early lists is improbable, we must bear in mind that such an antiquity is in keeping with archæological data and closely parallels the projected Maya chronology.
​For the career of the Aztec in Mexico we have a respectable historical literature, but for the want of dated sculptures cannot establish so remote a chronology as for the Maya. The tabulated list gives us a few of the most important dates, though all those preceding 1325 A.D. are but crude approximations.
| A.D. | | MEXICAN CHRONOLOGY |
| 300 | (?) | Toltec cities founded, Tula, Teotihuacan, etc. |
| 700 | (?) | Totonac settled in the State of Vera Cruz. |
| 1200 | (?) | Tarascan established a state in Michoacan. |
| 1325 | | Founding of Mexico City by the Aztec. |
| 1370 | | Tri-partite confederacy, Mexico, Tezcoco, and Tlacopan. |
| 1473 | | Tlatilulco subjected by Aztec. |
| 1487 | | The great temple of Mexico City built—famous for human sacrifices. |
| 1521 | | Cortez captures Mexico City. |
The list of Aztec rulers as given by Sahagun is as follows, the dates being approximate:—
| | Name | Length of Rule | Probable Dates |
| 1. | Acampich | 21 | 1370-1391 |
| 2. | Uitziliuitl | 21 | 1391-1412 |
| 3. | Chimalpopoca | 10 | 1412-1422 |
| 4. | Itzcoatzin | 14 | 1422-1436 |
| 5. | Moteuhçoma | 30 | 1436-1466 |
| 6. | Axayacatl | 14 | 1466-1480 |
| 7. | Tigocicatzin | 4 | 1480-1484 |
| 8. | Auitzotl | 18 | 1484-1502 |
| 9. | Moteuhcoma | 19 | 1502-1521 |
The career of the Aztec rulers appears closely parallel both as to time and extent to that of the Inca in Peru, but both were later than the rise of the Maya. The similar dominance of the rulers of Bogota in Colombia should be noted, though historians have been less successful in projecting their chronology. The three examples we have given, therefore, exhaust the list of historical chronologies for the New World. Among the less cultured tribes there are a few feeble efforts to compile chronologies. The Kiowa and Dakota of the North American Plains have a kind of year count, but this does not reach beyond the period of colonization and so has no significance ​here. The celebrated Walam Olum of the Delaware Indians gives us but the vaguest scraps of chronology, and little more can be said of the Popol Vuh manuscript for the Quiché of Guatemala and the annals of their neighbors the Cakchiquel. Hence, for historical chronologies that correlate with dated time we must look chiefly to Mexico and Central America. Here lies one of our most important problems, for on its solution depends our proper perspective of New World culture.
CHRONOLOGIES DETERMINED BY STRATIFICATION
Though in the projection of the above chronologies documentary material of some kind gave the points of departure and the essential checks, the general method employed is, after all, about equally applicable to non-document producing cultures, for the period of discovery cross-sectioned all alike. This gives us a definite chronological point of regard from which we can work backwards. The most direct way of projecting relative chronologies is by the examination of stratified culture remains, as exemplified in the results of Paleolithic research in Europe. There are, however, many phases of culture that have no indestructible counterparts, or by-products, and so exist only in the aboriginal cultures as cross-sectioned by the discovery of the New World. Even here it is possible to discover chronological relations if one but resort to careful historical analysis. Unfortunately for us but little progress has been made in either of these groups of problems.
Perhaps the best known stratigraphic discoveries are those of Uhle at Pachacamac, Peru, where he found four distinct types of pottery so superimposed as to make their chronology clear. These are as follows:—
4. Inca style
3. Black pottery
2. Red-white-black pottery
1. Tiahuanaco ware
Subsequent analysis of the data for other parts of Peru shows that at the time the Tiahuanaco type held sway in Pachacamac, the ancient cities of Tiahuanaco, Nasca, and Trujillo were the leading culture centers and were ​fundamentally similar. Preceding this period, upon the coast at least, was a primitive population.
In 1910 a stratification of cultures was observed near the City of Mexico, which subsequent investigation shows to consist of ceramic remains in three horizons, as follows:—
Already many of the known sites in Mexico can be placed in this scheme, so that all we now need is careful field-work.
In 1914 Nelson announced an example of stratification in the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico, which with his extensive explorations in the adjacent Pueblo area gives us for once a chronology in this much studied region. Again the determining character is pottery, giving at least four successive periods:—
Outside of these areas there are a few sporadic cases of stratification, as Parker's demonstration of an older Algonkin culture underlying that of the Iroquois in New York State, and Sterns' recent excavations in eastern Nebraska where he finds at least two cultures. Finally, the work of Abbott, Putnam, Volk, and Spier in New Jersey has demonstrated at least two culture strata, to be discussed under another head. Some of the earlier investigators of shell-heaps claimed definite stratification, but later work has failed to verify the finding. Hence, considering the small number of exceptions just cited, we can truthfully say that so far, archæological work outside of the regions of higher culture has given negative stratification.
Perhaps it should be noted that so far the tendency of this negative archæological investigation has been to show some ​sequential development in richness and complexity. Thus, Smith's results in the Columbia area and Nelson's shell-heap work in California show simpler and somewhat cruder cultures for the lower parts of their deposits, but the persistence of many fundamental forms throughout suggests that the succeeding cultures were built upon the foundation laid down at what seems to have been the period of earliest occupancy. This also seems to be true of shell and other deposits on the Atlantic Coast. Even in the Pueblo area we find a similar condition. Consequently the best interpretation we can give the observed data is that in the formative period of New World cultures the types now appearing in our areas were localized, but less differentiated. Such uninterrupted occupation of an area would not result in good examples of stratification, but would give us deposits in which culture changes could be detected only in the qualities and frequencies of the most typical artifacts; for example, Nelson's pottery series from New Mexico. This is an altogether different condition from that confronting the archæologist in Western Europe.
INAPPLICABILITY OF OLD WORLD CHRONOLOGY
The only place in the whole world where we have a connected view of man's career from the first to the last is in western Europe. This is not taken to mean that that restricted area was the place of our origin, but simply that it is the one part of the earth where we have full data. Everyone is familiar with the few grand periods into which this history is divided, as Paleolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc., and there is a natural tendency to assume that these sequences for western Europe must hold for the whole world. Consequently, many efforts have been made to discriminate between Paleolithic and Neolothic in the data for the New World. Some of the earlier writers sought to identify the typical forms of Paleolithic chipped implements by selecting those that closely parallel European types, but such matching of forms could not give certain conclusions and was eventually abandoned. Nevertheless, some modern students of European ​archæology seem to hold to the belief that our data here in the New World are quite susceptible of division into true Paleolithic and Neolithic periods. Again, when the notion of a cave culture developed in Europe, American students searched our caverns for similar types, but without marked success. All this occupies an important place in the history of our subject; but the result was in the main negative, since no exact parallels were found. Unfortunately, the investigators of this period sought for specific parallels and not finding them, formulated a theory that the New World was extremely young and that in consequence no true Paleolithic, or even deeply stratified remains, would be found. The reaction to this seems to have been a turning away from all stratigraphic and analytic studies to other problems, with the obvious result that no advance has been made.
Recently some of the younger anthropologists have turned to the problem anew, this time not seeking mere parallels, but seeking to analyze the situation as found. For example, Nelson worked last season in the Mammoth Cave district of Kentucky, finding two cultures, the earlier of which is without pottery and with very little polished stone. Again, new studies at Trenton, New Jersey, by Spier have made conclusive the existence of an earlier culture, also without pottery and polished stone. Since both of these observations are east of the Mississippi River, we may conclude that the existence of two culture periods is extremely probable in eastern United States. In other words, when the problem is treated independently, we can, by analysis, arrive at chronological distinctions. We may, therefore, expect great developments in the near future. While it is clear that the specific concepts of European archæology cannot apply here, yet in the end it may turn out that there is something in common; at least, the pioneer efforts of the new anthropological school have brought results.
INFERENTIAL CHRONOLOGIES
We now turn to the second method of determining time relations for culture. The theoretical demonstration of the ​method has been led by Sapir, while the best examples of its application are to be found in certain studies by Boas among the Eskimo, Spinden in Maya art, Lowie in societies of the Plains Indians, and Hatt in studies of clothing.
Boas has used the method in a number of instances, but particularly in his discussions of Eskimo culture, when he concludes that the most differentiating features of the Alaskan Eskimo are more recent than the remaining Eskimo culture. The method is even more extensively applied by Thalbitzer, who decides that the original home of the Eskimo was around Bering Sea, from which general center he traces out the older and newer traits.
Hatt, a Danish student, has exhaustively studied skin clothing both for North America and Asia, distinguishing between very old surviving types and those of recent origin. The oldest origin center he places in northern Asia from whence the concepts seem to have been diffused. In general, he finds two periods of diffusion over the arctic and sub-arctic areas of the world:—
Spinden's searching analysis of Maya art is important both for the results attained and as an example of sound method. By objective comparison the carvings upon the monuments and walls of Maya ruins were placed in two groups that seemed to be sequential. Further, since these stelæ, or monuments, are dated, it is easy to designate the time relations of these groups, thus establishing art periods. From this as the point of departure, the entire art of the region is analyzed into its respective periods and norms established for the identification of such additional examples as may be discovered. As to how far the method can be trusted in localities where there is no dating system to serve as a check, is not clear; but it promises well.
​Of a different sort but equally meritorious is Lowie's historical analysis of societies among the various tribal groups in the Plains Area. The full reports available for practically all the many Plains tribes make it obvious that one general system of societies was diffused throughout the area. By a close analysis of these data it is possible to show some of the older forms of these organizations, approximately where they arose, and in what direction they were diffused. Incidentally, close former historical contacts were revealed for some tribes now rather widely separated.
Thus, we see, that by working backward from the historic period or, as in the exceptional case of the Maya, from a fixed date, it is possible by these methods to separate the older elements of culture from those of relatively recent origin. Looking back over these typical studies we see that the general method is the same whether the subject be in art, industries, or social organization. In the main, it first analyzes the culture trait-complexes and then by comparative reasoning arranges them in time sequences. Practically every skilled field-investigator in the New World faces problems of this sort; but the method is at its best only when we deal with traits having wide continuous distributions, for unless we can balance the trait variations in one group of people against those in a neighboring group, little can be expected.
Aside from these more engaging problems there are opportunities for the study of trait origin by direct methods. Of these Mooney's Ghost Dance Religion is a fine example. In such cases the problem is, on the whole, directly historical, based upon documentary and personal testimony. It is to be regretted that more attention is not given to such problems because it is only in them that we shall get actual cases of culture movements to serve as check data in the development of inferential chronologies.
In concluding this brief survey of the as yet undeveloped chronology of New World culture, we note one or two points of general interest. In the main, the stratigraphic chronologies have been determined by pottery alone, suggesting that the ceramic art as a whole should receive the very closest ​attention, not as an end in itself, but for the sake of the culture sequence of which it is the most convenient index. Another is that our subject is essentially an historical one, the only rational approach to which is backward through the cross-section made in it by the discovery of America.
* ↑ Brinton, 1882. II, 1885. II; Brasseur de Bourbourg, 1861. I.
* ↑ Morley, 1915. I.
* ↑ Morley, 1915. I.
* ↑ Markham, 1910. I, pp. 309–310.
* ↑ Anales de Cuauhtitlan, 1886. I.
* ↑ Mooney, 1898. I.
* ↑ Brinton, 1885. I.
* ↑ Brinton, 1890. I.
* ↑ Sapir, 1916. I.
* ↑ Uhle, 1903. I.
* ↑ Spinden, 1915. I.
* ↑ Nelson, N. C., 1916. I.
* ↑ Parker, 1916. II.
* ↑ Sterns, 1915. I.
* ↑ Volk, 1911. I.
* ↑ Spier, 1916. I.
* ↑ Smith, H. I., 1910. II.
* ↑ Nelson, N. C., 1909. I; 1910. I
* ↑ Nelson, N. C., 1917. I.
* ↑ Spier, 1916. I.
* ↑ Sapir, 1916. I.
* ↑ Boas, 1907. I.
* ↑ Spinden, 1913. I.
* ↑ Lowie, 1916. II.
* ↑ Hatt, 1914. I; 1916. I.
* ↑ Boas, 1907. I.
* ↑ Thalbitzer, 1914. I.
* ↑ Hatt, 1916. I.
* ↑ Spinden, 1913. I.
* ↑ Lowie, 1916. II.
* ↑ Mooney, 1896. I.