Correlations between Archeological and 



Culture Areas in the American 



Continents 



By Clark Wissler 



N a recent paper 1 Professor Holmes gives us a definite 

 statement of the archeological areas in North America 

 based on a comparative study of the artifacts so far col- 

 lected. These are indicated on a distribution sketch map 

 - 1 which we reproduce here. At about the same time the 

 writer presented a map sketching the generally recognized culture 

 areas for the historic tribes of the United States and Canada. The 

 latter was based almost wholly on material culture data and should 

 therefore be quite comparable to the archeological distribution. 



A mere glance at these two maps shows a close correlation. In 

 fact, the agreement is practically absolute except for eastern United 

 States. All this has been remarked before, but its significance should 

 not be overlooked. We must conclude that unless new data come to 

 light, the antecedents of the historic cultures localized in these areas 

 were from the start the initial and only cultures existing there and 

 that their development has been merely an expansion along their 

 original lines. The apparent a priori improbability of this is no doubt 

 responsible for the extreme skepticism it usually elicits, but the plain 

 facts of correlation cited above make clear that we are here facing one 

 of the most important problems in the anthropology of the New 

 World. 



Returning to the comparison of our two maps, we note upon closer 

 inspection a few points of difference. Thus, in eastern North America 

 where the culture-area map shows but two divisions, the archeological 

 map presents four. This divergence is sometimes cited as indicative 

 of great changes in the distribution of population, but if the Iroquois 

 were withdrawn and placed in the south whence they seem to have 

 come recently, the mound peoples of Ohio reinstated, and the extinct 

 Florida tribes revived, we should have a close agreement between 

 the two maps. Then if we carry our analysis a little farther, we may 



1 American Anthropologist, vol. 16, no. 3, July-Sept. 1914. 

 [48l] 



