A Cognitive Historical Model for American Material Culture: 1620-1835 Author(S): James Deetz and Richard L
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Cognitive Historical Model for American Material Culture: 1620-1835 Author(s): James Deetz and Richard L. Bushman Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies, No. 20, Reconstructing Complex Societies: An Archaeological Colloquium (1974), pp. 21-27 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20066624 Accessed: 15-08-2017 04:06 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies This content downloaded from 128.227.133.130 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:06:36 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms A Cognitive Historical Model for American Material Culture: 1620-1835 21 Chapter II complex societies to raise this point and to illustrate it with a society which fits this de scription. I might point out that it is an em pire, the British, but that it is also a frontier; and it is certain that the material culture of a A Cognitive Historical Model frontier society differs at least in the form of for American Material archaeological remains from that of the parent culture which gave it birth. Culture : 1620-1835 My insights are based on the work of Henry Glassie, a Folklorist trained at the University of Indiana, with a strong cultural, geographical, and structural anthropology background (e.g. James Deetz 1969). Basically, the model here is one which considers certain aspects of general culture in space and time. It is a formulation of what happened in Plimoth particularly between I should like to present briefly some rather 1635, when our documentary data begins and exciting developments in our project in histor our archaeology effectively starts, and ca. ical archaeology primarily in the old Plimoth 1835. The description of this period was first read at a conference at Winterthur in Dela Colony area, where we have been working pe ware in 1972. riodically for about 10 years. And what I would like to attempt here is the development While it is quite possible that every English of what might be thought of as an explana colony established during the 1st half of the tory model which uses material culture to in 17th century would have passed through dicate and reflect the non-material dimensions broadly similar changes in the cultural systems of human behavior, by emphasizing my con involved, this model here applies only to New cern with the cognitive dimension of culture. England, Massachusetts Bay, and the Plimoth I realize this borders perilously on paleopsy colonies. And it argues for three sequential chology, and it might be argued as impossible, cultural types or configurations, one follow particularly in data which are not accompa ing the other and each somewhat different nied by written or historical materials. How from the other. The initial system in Massa ever, ours is, and therefore we can formulate chusetts was that brought to the New World such things. I offer it not so much as a great by Englishmen, and it most closely conformed hope, but rather as a caveat that maybe there to that which they practiced in their former are things in our data which we are not aware homes. Since the population of early Massa of if, for no other reason, than because we do chusetts, particularly Plimoth, was not repre not have the kinds of control which enable us sentative of contemporary English society in to see them. its entirety, their culture was also not totally I would suppose that there is a cognitive representative. The life ways which were dimension even in the simplest of societies, transported to New England in the early 17th which has some effect, however small, on the century were basically those of the less pros way their material assemblages manifest them perous steward, yeoman, and husbandman. selves either to the ethnographer or archaeol Deeply rooted in an earlier medieval tradition, ogist. But I think in most instances at the the culture of the Puritan separatist colonist somewhat more simple end of the cultural was conservative, potentially self-sufficient, complexity scale (in terms of socio-economics) and heavily shaped by religious attitude. Once this tended to become buried in more impera established in the New World, this system un tive aspects of culture. Subsistence being fair derwent minor modification as a result of a ly urgent, there is not that number of alterna somewhat different environment, but it con tives available to a culture for it to employ tinued relatively unchanged for a generation. one or another. Thus, if in fact this is even This period I would date ca. 1620 - 1660. partly so, one could suggest that the cognitive The Puritan Revolution led to a dramatic dimension of material culture assemblages reduction in immigration during the 1640's, may become more visible, more explicit, and creating depressed economic conditions, a may tend to surface to a greater degree as one shortage of imported goods, and a cultural moves up the scale of complexity. Therefore, isolation which led to a slow but steady diver I think it is appropriate in a colloquium on gence from the earlier yeoman life ways. This This content downloaded from 128.227.133.130 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:06:36 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 22 Reconstructing Complex Societies divergence was reinforced by the increased larly away from the cities. And only then did presence of individuals who had been born in the regional boundaries begin to dissolve and the New World. From this semi-isolated so the overall rate of cultural change begin to ac ciety, a distinctive Anglo-American culture celerate. Since the immediate origin of this emerged; one probably less English than be new popular culture was England, as society fore, and less than it would become by the felt its effects it became re-Anglicized. There eve of the American Revolution. This second fore the vector of cultural change in New Eng cultural system, ca. 1660-1760, was a typical land can be thought of as a broad sweeping folk culture marked by strong conservatism, arc diverging from its English parent in the resistance to change, and regional variation. early 17th century and curving back to unite So strong was the conservative nature of this with it under the influence of new life styles early folk culture that it continued relatively appearing in the mid-18th century and be unchanged in the more isolated rural areas of yond. By the turn of the 19th century even New England until well past the middle of the the most remote areas of New England were 18th century. in this new cultural system which extended The impact of the Renaissance in the form unbroken over all of Anglo-America. In of the Georgian tradition was felt at different archaeological terms, this period can be viewed times in 18th century colonial America; earlier as the first true horizon in American history. in the metropolitan centers - ca. 1700; later in Now then, that is essentially the model, in the deep countryside - ca. 1760. And while rather brief terms. The questions remain: is buildings in the Georgian style began about this model to be found in the data? Is there the turn of the century in the more elite sec any kind of fit with the data? Can any mani tors of the society, for the purposes of the festation of this model be picked up in the model in question the key element is that various material culture categories with which time when those cultural changes which the we, as archaeologists, function? I would sug term "Georgian" denotes have an effect on gest an affirmative answer, and I will confine the majority of society. Henry Glassie has my comments to three categories: ceramics, argued that "Georgian" is far more than a sty gravestones, and architecture, to demonstrate listic category. Indeed, it can even apply to a how this model can be seen to fit and does re distinctive Anglo-American mind set, charac flect these changes in these areas of material terized by symmetrical cognitive structures, culture. homogeneity in the material culture, a pro From 1631 on, probate inventories (record gressive and innovative world view, and an in ing everything in everyone's house and often sistence on order and balance that permeates prices and in what room objects were found) all aspects of life from the decorative arts to combined with archaeology are helpful in the the organization of space by society. Glassie analysis of the ceramics. There are very few has demonstrated elegantly how this particu in number and type from the first period; so lar cognitive system can affect everything few that when we dug the first site which was from farm layout to carved chests. In these representative of this period, we thought we aspects, it contrasts sharply with the earlier had missed the site entirely. The historical medieval tradition. As opposed to the 18th records indicate that at this particular time century, I would suggest here that the yeoman and in this particular class, ceramics played an and husbandman culture of New England in exceedingly minor role, being related primari the 17th century was far more medieval than ly to dairying activities.