Afterword: War, Peace, and Plains Archaeology

AbstractAt five Little River focus village sites in Rice and McPherson counties, Kansas, so-called council circles are probably the most notable features present. Each consists of a low central mound surrounded by a ditch or a series of depressions (borrow pits) or both. No village site has more than a single circle. At the only one yet excavated (Tobias site), elongate house pits arranged around a patio within the ditched zone formed a structural complex which is apparently unique in Plains archaeology. The houses were built of poles and grass, earth-covered wholly or in part, and had evidently been destroyed by fire. The covering fill contained numerous large boulders and scattered human bones, some fire-blackened. From their plan and contents, it is suggested that these house complexes were special-purpose structures; from their demonstrated orientation, it is further suggested that one of their functions may have been to record solstitial sunrise (and sunset?) points on the horizon.

Download Full-text

The Effect of the Direct Historical Approach on the Development of Theory in Plains Archaeology: A Comment on Mitchell's Analysis of the MBP Legacy

American Antiquity ◽

10.2307/25470447 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 72 (4) ◽

pp. 785-788 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Donna C. Roper

Keyword(s):

Archaeological Record ◽

Historical Approach ◽

Plains Archaeology ◽

The Rich

Mark Mitchell's analysis of the legacy of the Missouri Basin Project (MBP) identified the direct historical approach as one discourse that shaped the MBP legacy. While that identification is certainly correct, the discussion is too limited in two ways. First, the use of the direct historical approach for tracing ethnicity was more limited than is generally recognized. Second, and more seriously, the rich documentary and ethnographic record of the Plains Village lifeway became a too readily used source of specific analogies for reading the archaeological record. Theory became irrelevant. Some of the numerous inaccuracies this produced are only recently being corrected.

Download Full-text

Bird Bones, Burials, and Bundles in Plains Archaeology

American Antiquity ◽

10.2307/279331 ◽

1975 ◽

Vol 40 (4) ◽

pp. 444-452 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Douglas H. Ubelaker ◽

Waldo R. Wedel

Keyword(s):

Missouri River ◽

Archaeological Sites ◽

Museum Collections ◽

Archaeological Remains ◽

Time Perspectives ◽

Archaeological Materials ◽

Plains Archaeology ◽

Minor Portion ◽

Important Time ◽

Indian Medicine

Plains archaeologists have usually devoted little attention to the bird remains that normally comprise a relatively minor portion of the yield from their excavations. Bird bones from several archaeological sites on the Missouri River are shown to have been purposefully and selectively modified by man. They exhibit a remarkable similarity to prepared bird skins and other ceremonial objects found in Omaha, Osage, Arikara, and other Plains Indian medicine bundles in various museum collections. The ethnographic specimens are believed to identify the archaeological remains as to function; conversely, the archaeological materials add important time perspectives to native use of the ritual items in museum collections and in the documentary record.

Download Full-text

Communities Make Theory: A Response to Bleed and Roper

American Antiquity ◽

10.2307/25470448 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 72 (4) ◽

pp. 789-792 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mark D. Mitchell

Keyword(s):

Conceptual Development ◽

Current Theory ◽

Historical Research ◽

Archaeological Research ◽

Research Practices ◽

Plains Archaeology

In their comments, Bleed and Roper acknowledge the profound effects routine research practices have had on the conceptual development of Plains archaeology, though both disagree with aspects of my analysis. Bleed disputes my characterization of current theory in Plains archaeology but fails to appreciate the extent to which Plains archaeology continues to emphasize culture historical research. Bleed further argues that there are few connections between the research practices established by the Missouri Basin Project (MBP) and those of more recent Plains archaeologists. However, such a stance discounts the powerful influence of construct paradigms or exemplars on the development of method and theory. Roper provides valuable insights into the role played by direct historic analogy in the development of theory in Plains archaeology. However, her analysis glosses over the fact that all aspects of archaeological research are informed by theoretical propositions, whether explicitly stated or merely assumed.

Download Full-text